Introduction As I stand on the side staircase

As I stand on the side staircase of the stage, I allow myself a moment to take in

the scene and its import. It is December 10, 2008, and the auditorium is filled to capacity

with the entire student body of Sunrise Middle School (SMS) and their teachers. The

overflow audience of students and faculty gazes fixedly at the stage where members of

the SMS Global Care Club take turns reciting excerpts of their reflections about the

experience of participating in a global service-learning initiative that had successfully

sponsored construction of a K-8 school in Awassa, Ethiopia. Accompanied by a

projection of photos and video of our newly built Ethiopian sister school and its students,

club members invoke global citizenship, compassion, and youth empowerment as the

sources of their inspiration and commitment.

As the teacher-facilitator for this initiative, snapshots of my experiences with

these students and with their community of supporters—parents, teacher volunteers, and

local citizens—float through my mind. In particular, I recall the situation moments

before our initiative’s kickoff event: an African “Gebzha” festival the previous spring…

As the afternoon moved toward dusk, student members of the SMS Global Care

Club gathered on the second floor computer room to conduct final preparations for the

evening’s major event. Working independently or in small groups, some students revised

and printed the final PowerPoint pages for pasting onto their informational tri-boards to

be presented as part of a gallery tour about Ethiopia and Sub-Saharan Africa. Members

of the poetry reading group gathered in the hallway to practice for their upcoming oral

presentation. Several high school students, formerly regular members of the middle

school club, exercised their mentorship roles by assisting the middle school students in a

variety of ways: editing poems and presentation boards, modeling and providing

feedback regarding presentation style, monitoring and advising students working in the

hallway. Concurrently, a teacher-volunteer delivered final instructions to her student

setup committee before guiding it downstairs to the gymnasium where they collaborated

with parent volunteers to prepare stations for the festival. Meanwhile, a committee of

parents and students worked feverishly in the auditorium to resolve last-minute glitches

with the sound system speakers and microphones, while several students and parents tried

to understand why the computer was not downloading the disk containing the PowerPoint

meant to accompany the student poetry reading.

Somehow, while trying to monitor and supervise these and other vexing

lastminute problems, amidst the predictable but constructive middle school “chaos” that

invariably accompanies such ambitious events, I believed that the celebratory moment

that my students and I enjoyed on the auditorium stage in December 2010 would come. I

knew that the countless hours that had been and would be volunteered, both before and

after school, by all stakeholders in this global citizenship community to promote the

success of this youth-led, global, humanitarian initiative would be vindicated and

rewarded…

Yet, even now, several years removed from the celebratory moment alluded to

above, I ponder the ethical and pedagogical implications of the commitment offered by

the Global Care student members. What was, and continues to be, their motivation for

participating in such a time-consuming, multi-year, humanitarian initiative on behalf of

children living halfway around the world, children who they have never met and are not

likely to meet? In what ways might youth participation in this initiative foster their

selfconceptions as global citizenship practitioners or the development of dispositions of

global citizenship? What might prompt middle-schoolers to extend their lens of concern

and compassion to children so removed geographically and culturally from their own

daily experiences, i.e., for geographically distant, non-intimate others?

To address such questions, it is necessary for me to look closely at the evolving

pedagogical relationship between my students and me, as well as the central impact of

this relationship on the culture of our global citizenship community. Specifically, it is

important to identify and analyze the way in which power and conflict within our

teacherstudents relationship impacted critical aspects of our action-learning initiative,

such as: curriculum and agenda-setting, epistemological process, and decision-making

practices. Additionally, I must examine how this relationship with my students impacted

my capacity to effectively foster youth voice and empowerment. Further, I must identify

and understand the ways in which my teacher-students relationship has impacted my own

priorities, values, and objectives as a teacher-facilitator of a global citizenship

community.

The questions and topics outlined above regarding ethical and pedagogical aspects

of my teacher-students relationship with the members of the SMS Global Care Club

conjoin to establish the central research question of this study: How did I, in my role as

teacher-facilitator of an extra-curricular service club, facilitate development of a

collaborative and equitable teacher-students relationship and culture aimed at nurturing

the voice, empowerment, and global citizenship dispositions of participating students on

behalf of distant, non-intimate, suffering others?

Problem Statement

A survey of the most egregious instances of human suffering, whether in the form

of global poverty, war, genocide or child exploitation to name a few, suggests that the

causes and consequences of such suffering invariably transcend the boundaries of the

modern nation-state. The reality of such transnational global problems suggests the need

for developing educational mechanisms that raise awareness of the impact of our actions

—on both the macro level of governance and commerce and the micro level of the

individual human heart and mind—on unknown and unnamed others beyond our

immediate circle of concern, as well as of our ethical obligation toward such suffering

others. Through such a process of awareness, some of this suffering might assume a

“face,” the unmistakable face of a real human “other,” bearing the imprint of

vulnerability, pain and despair, but also of muted hope and trapped potential. This face,

even if initially experienced as an imposition to our daily mundane concerns and routines,

extends a hand in our direction; it remains for us to try either to banish the face of the

other from our consciousness or to extend a hand in kind, as a gesture of a message

empathically received and responded to.

Our essential ethical challenge as educators, I believe, is to promote pathways—in

conjunction with our students—to broaden and deepen the capacity of our students to

immerse their lives with a profound curiosity of mind and empathy of spirit. But our

ethical mission need not, nor should not, end there. We are further charged with the task

of co-discovering or co-creating with our students concrete pathways for outreach and

connection with persons and cultures beyond our daily lives, to unmask and reveal the

fullest possible gamut of humanity, to respond empathically to the extended hand of the

distant, non-intimate other on a global scale. In other words, we are charged with the task

of nurturing the potential for ethical/social/political dispositions of global citizenship that

might promote openness to the face of the suffering other—whether she resides in the

neighboring village or halfway around the world—in all her human dignity, vulnerability,

and potential.

To achieve such an ambitious but important ethical and pedagogical objective

within the context of a middle school setting requires an educator to address several

overarching issues. First, he must, in conjunction with his students, develop a working

conception of global citizenship and its dispositions that will guide their joint practice and

culture. Secondly, she must conceive and facilitate pedagogical and cultural practices

appropriate to the developmental level and needs of middle school youth to effectively

promote the nurturance of global citizenship dispositions, youth voice, and empowerment

through their involvement in real-world contexts.

Within the context of this study, I utilized a pedagogy for global citizenship

commonly referred to as service-learning or what I will refer to below as “global

citizenship action-learning.” Specifically, this pedagogy facilitates the process of

discovering the presence and face of suffering others and empowers youth to

constructively address this suffering through a process of education, public advocacy, and

direct action in response to a selected global problem and on behalf of—or, preferably, in

collaboration with—a population affected by this problem. Participation in a

servicelearning initiative elevates a pedagogy for global citizenship from primarily

learning about global citizenship to a potential integration of its concepts and practices

into one’s ethical, social, and political identity through their implementation in response

to an actual global problem.

Practitioners and academicians attribute to service-learning pedagogy a broad

range of social, emotional, cognitive, ethical, and political learning outcomes pertinent to

this study. Specifically, service-learning has been credited with nurturing the following

dispositions and aptitudes: self-conception as a change agent (Pijanowski, 2001);

fostering the development of care and empathy for others (Cipolle, 2004; Doyle & Doyle,

2003; Foos, 2004; Rhoads, 2000; Smith, 2004; Terry & Bohnenberger, 2003); compassion

(Saltmarsh, 1997); civic empowerment and social responsibility (BoyleBaise & Binford,

2005; Simons & Cleary, 2006; Terry & Bohnenberger, 2007), including its extension

“beyond . . . primary groups to the larger society” (Pritchard & Whitehead,

III, 2004); social justice through societal critique (Boyle-Baise & Binford, 2005; Cipolle,

2004; Wade, 2001); multicultural understanding, including awareness and appreciation of

diversity in all its forms (Battistoni, 1997; Boyle-Baise & Binford, 2005; Cohen, 2006;

Fertman et al., 1996; Sheffield, 2005; Simons & Clearly, 2006 ), as well as the “skills and

abilities for relating to culturally diverse groups” (Pritchard & Whitehead, III, 2004, p. 8);

critical consciousness (Beilke, 2005; Boyle-Baise & Binford, 2005; Cipolle, 2004);

political skills (Boyle-Baise & Binford, 2005; Simons & Cleary, 2006); democratic

citizenship (Battistoni, 1997; Clark et al., 1997; LeSourd, 1997; Rhoads, 2003);

intrapersonal, interpersonal, and social development (Hinck and Brandell, 1999; Simons

and Cleary, 2006); cooperative learning skills (Terry & Bohnenberger, 2003); cognitive

development (Pritchard & Whitehead, III, 2004; Terry & Bohnenberger, 2007); and

academic achievement (Kielsmeier et al., 2004; Pritchard & Whitehead, III, 2004).

However, notwithstanding the preceding research claims about the potential

effectiveness of an effective service-learning pedagogy in promoting dispositions

supportive of global citizenship, a substantial proportion of systematic research on

service-learning has focused on higher education, as opposed to a focus on middle and

high school students (Seitsinger, 2005). Indeed, there are significant gaps in the scholarly

literature regarding the promotion of global citizenship through service-learning at the

middle school level. There are critical topics pertinent to my proposed study for which I

could find few if any published articles or texts, including: identification of specific

ethical/social/political dispositions of global citizenship; identification of pedagogical

practices for promoting global citizenship, including the use of service-learning as an

optimal praxis for promoting global citizenship; assessment of the impact of any

servicelearning initiative with regard to student acquisition of the ethical/social/political

dispositions of global citizenship; and meaningful examination of students’ “voices” or

reflective capacities to determine both their conceptions of global citizenship and the

impact of participation in a service-learning initiative on their self-conception as global

citizens. In fact, I could not find a single published document that provides a substantial

account regarding the process used by a classroom teacher to promote global citizenship

identity and practice among middle school youth. Nor could I find any document

focused on the impact of the teacher-students relationship on the culture of one’s global

citizenship community. In conclusion, what is missing in the research literature is the

presentation and examination of the process through which a teacher and her middle

school students attempted to form a viable global citizenship community within the

context of an action-learning initiative that fostered the development of global citizenship

dispositions, voice, and empowerment of participating youth.

Purpose of the Study

To address the significant research deficiencies cited above, my study utilized an

action research methodology to examine my ongoing efforts to co-create with my

students a global citizenship community within the context of a global citizenship

actionlearning initiative for the purpose of nurturing the acquisition of global citizenship

dispositions, voice, and empowerment among middle school youth. My belief in the

ethical imperative of educators to promote global citizenship practice among youth,

combined with a glaring absence of pedagogical research regarding effective praxis for

such a purpose, provided the motivation and purpose for this dissertation.

Throughout my years as a middle school teacher, I have experimented with,

developed and implemented a variety of pedagogical strategies for facilitating the

nurturance of the type of ethical/social/political sensibility outlined above. These efforts

have included both classroom strategies and service-learning initiatives aimed at

promoting awareness among my students of issues of global concern, as well as

developing concrete methods for constructive advocacy on behalf of selected “suffering

others” in Bosnia, Cambodia, and Ethiopia. My experiences have persuaded me that, for

those of us committed to the exploration and nurturance of humanitarian principles and

dispositions in our students, the classroom as a setting for learning is not sufficient; we

must help our students reach beyond the arbitrary confinement of our physical classrooms

and to redefine the notion of classroom as constituting connection with one’s peers, local

community, and the world at large. That is, in order to promote the development of

global citizenship dispositions, as well as the voices and empowerment of youth, we need

to nurture those qualities through real-life engagement with the lives and needs of others.

However, while my work with middle school youth has borne outward fruit in the

attainment of the educational, advocacy, and service objectives prescribed within our

action-learning initiatives, prior to this dissertation, I had not engaged in a comprehensive

or scholarly inquiry regarding the purposes, methods, and impact of our joint pedagogical

practice. While my students and I have engaged in action-learning initiatives that have

successfully educated, integrated, and involved numerous peers, parents and local

communities, and succeeded in sponsoring the demining of a Bosnian village, the

rehabilitation of Cambodian landmine survivors and, most recently, the construction of a

12-room Ethiopian schoolhouse, I have not invested sufficient systematic focus in

analyzing the pedagogical and cultural processes used within our global citizenship

community to promote the growth of global citizenship dispositions, voice, and

empowerment among participating youth. Further, as cited above, I could find no such

attempt to examine or document such a pedagogical process of global citizenship

identity-formation and practice in the educational research on the middle school level.

In conclusion, the purpose of this dissertation is to better understand the culture of

the global citizenship community that my middle school students and I have been

constructing as a means of nurturing the dispositions of global citizenship, and youth

voice and empowerment, within the context of our global citizenship action-learning

initiative. In this way, I hope to address some of the major gaps in the research literature

outlined above regarding global citizenship pedagogy and middle school youth.

Conceptual Framework

Just as the establishment of a strong foundation is essential for construction of a

safe and enduring structure, it is essential to introduce and build a comprehensive and

coherent conceptual framework sufficient to explain, analyze, and support the purposes of

this study. To this end, after introducing my conception of global citizenship in the next

section of this chapter, I will introduce and examine the following conceptual and

thematic elements: identification of, and justification for, the dispositions that constitute

my global citizenship ethic in Chapter Two; a literature review and critique of

servicelearning pedagogy—or what I call “global citizenship action-learning

pedagogy”—as well as its applicability with early adolescents in Chapter Three;

explanation of, and justification regarding, my selection of a critical incidents

methodology as the type of action research used for data acquisition and analysis in

Chapter Four; description and discussion of the findings of my efforts to nurture global

citizenship practice and identity among participating adolescent youth within the context

of a global citizenship community in Chapter Five; and an examination of the

implications and contributions of this document regarding scholarly research and

pedagogical practice with middle school youth in Chapter Six. With this in mind, I

proceed to the next section where I offer my working definition of global citizenship.

A Working Definition of Global Citizenship

The study and application of an ethical/social/political construct such as global

citizenship requires the positing of a well-reasoned definition of this concept, subject to

revision. Indeed, a lack of consensus regarding a definition of global citizenship

(Rapoport, 2009) has undermined its usefulness as both an ethical and prescriptive guide

for policy-makers and prospective global citizenship practitioners (Williams, in Dower &

Williams). The need for such clarification is of particular importance to this text in that

my conception of global citizenship has a foundational influence on every aspect of my

practice as a classroom teacher and action-learning facilitator. Consequently, the purpose

of this section is to posit and justify the conception of global citizenship that guides my

pedagogical practice with middle school youth.

For Dower and Williams (2002), global citizenship is constituted by two major

components: the ethical component (concerned with the identification of one’s grounding

principles and dispositions) and the citizenship component (concerned with global

citizenship in the social/political arena). I refer to the nexus of these axes—the point at

which social/political action embodies the ethical elements of one’s global ethic—as

“global citizenship practice.” I posit the term “practice” to distinguish between isolated,

unplanned acts of global citizenship and a commitment to accept a level of ongoing

responsibility for the welfare of some identifiable group of suffering others by addressing

a selected global problem through a regular schedule of interventions.

Further, for me, such suffering others must represent individuals or a group with whom

one does not possess a prior level of personal intimacy or connection.

It is this juncture point of ethically motivated social/political action in response to

the suffering of the other that I conceive of as “global citizenship” and seek to facilitate

and nurture in my global citizenship practice as a person and educator. While it is of

critical importance to understand and examine this distinction between the ethical and

citizenship bases for global citizenship, as well as the relationship between these two

components, for me global citizenship practice must ultimately conceive of ethics and

action as integrated to make sense at all. Thus, for me, the notion of a global ethic and its

expression through tangible social/political action or citizenship is embedded within the

concept of global citizenship practice.

Dower (Dower & Williams, 2002) refers to persons who accept a level of

responsibility for enacting a global ethic to address some actual problem as “active global

citizens.” In addition, Dower (Dower & Williams, 2002) emphasizes the necessity of

expressing one’s activism through an identifiable organizational entity or institution

within what has been referred to as the “global civil society” (p. 40). Such

nongovernmental organizations and associations provide tangible vehicles for the

implementation and extension of global citizenship practice beyond an individual’s

independent or non-associational acts of global citizenship for the purpose of influencing

the policies and practices of political/governmental institutions (Dower, 2000; Schattle,

2008) and, I would argue, for addressing global problems. Indeed, for Dower (2000), the

practice of global citizenship through engagement with such organizations represents an

ethical requirement for the practice of active global citizenship.

While agreeing wholeheartedly with the importance of practicing global

citizenship in association with others, I believe such collaboration does not require

membership in an official organization. Rather, I believe global citizenship practice can

occur within the context of any community of like-minded others, regardless of whether

or not such a community has been officially sanctioned as a member of civil society, as

long as the community’s mission involves the identification and expression of a global

ethic in the public domain for the purpose of addressing global problems. (I refer to such

a community as a “global citizenship community” or “community of conscience.”) This

distinction empowers an entity such as a school class or club with the capacity to serve as

a viable social context for practicing global citizenship. Indeed, the account of my work

with middle school students elaborated upon in this dissertation attempts to demonstrate

the supportive and transformative power that involvement with such a global citizenship

community can have upon each of its members.

Based on the preceding discussion, I posit the following working definition of

global citizenship or global citizenship practice:

Global citizenship practice involves the development, articulation, and

expression of a global ethic through engagement in planned actions within

the context of a global citizenship community for the purpose of addressing

a global problem(s) impacting non-intimate suffering others.

Having established my conception of global citizenship, I proceed in Chapter Two

to introduce and explicate the dispositions and principles of my global ethic that guide my

practice with middle school youth.

Chapter Two: My Global Ethic

The global ethic that guides my global citizenship practice is derived to a

significant extent from my attempts to deconstruct, discern, and articulate the

ethical/social/political dispositions and principles that might motivate an individual,

whether acting singly or within the context of a supportive global citizenship community,

to take tangible action to support, empower, or save the lives of “non-intimate suffering

others” (i.e., an individual or group outside one’s circle of family, friends, and others with

whom one already shares a bond of association and/or emotional connection), including

those not within one’s geographic proximity, i.e., “distant, non-intimate, suffering others.”

Thus, for me, the indispensable elements of a global ethic that articulate global

citizenship practice include: ethical and/or caring intent, and purposeful social/political

action derived and empowered by this intent, on behalf of the restoration of the dignity,

needs, and rights of a non-intimate beneficiary whose suffering has resulted from an

identifiable global problem. The specific objectives and nature of one’s global citizenship

practice are influenced from one end by a set of grounding ethical dispositions indicative

of a kind of “global citizenship identity” and on the other end by the

social/ethical/political relationship one establishes with the suffering other and his

requirements for dignity. These constructs of identity and relationship, as they connect to

global citizenship practice, require further elaboration and clarification before proceeding

to a more detailed discussion of the specific elements of my global ethic.

Global Citizenship Identity (“Extensivity”) and Relations with the Suffering Other

In their seminal study of the ethical and caring orientations and identities of

Holocaust rescuers, Oliner and Oliner (1988) posit the term “extensivity” to designate the

characteristics of “(i)nvolvement, commitment, care, and responsibility” indicative of

such heroic personalities (p. 186). These qualities, in turn, find expression in the ability

of such “extensive” individuals to demonstrate a “capacity for extensive relationships” as

revealed by “their stronger sense of attachment to others, including those outside their

immediate familial or communal circles (my italics)” (Oliner & Oliner, 1988, p. 249).

From my perspective as an educator, the nurturance of an extensive identity

among one’s students requires identification and articulation of a global ethic supportive

of extensivity, as well as development of a pedagogical approach that nurtures and

sustains this global ethic by establishing pathways for practicing global citizenship.

Golmohamad (2004) supports the linkage of this type of “thick sense of identity” with a

conception of citizenship—what I am calling “global citizenship identity”—that fosters

the dispositions of empathy and concern on behalf of non-intimate others (p. 134). Thus,

global citizenship identity and global citizenship practice are linked inextricably to the

identification and articulation of dispositions and principles conducive to nurturing a

supportive and effective response to the suffering of non-intimate others.

Yet, this type of response to the suffering of the non-intimate other requires more

than mere acknowledgement of her existence; I believe it requires the nurturance of some

form of relationship with what Levinas (1998) calls the “face,” i.e., the humanity, of the

suffering other. With this acknowledgement of the humanity—the unique particularity—

of the other, this connection between oneself and the other may become transfigured; that

is, such “full-faced” acknowledgment of the other promotes a perception of the other as

not subordinate or inferior to oneself, but as capable of a relationship of reciprocity

through which both participants may be transformed in solidarity with a common

humanity.

Thus, while the central purpose of this chapter is to develop and articulate a global

ethic supportive of the nurturance of global citizenship identity and practice, it is essential

to remain mindful throughout this process that the global citizenship practice engendered

by one’s global ethic happens in relation with the face of an actual suffering other, a face

whose “call” seeks not only my acknowledgment of his suffering, but my collaboration in

the restoration of his dignity. In other words, the development of dispositions and

principles befitting one’s global ethic, while necessary, is insufficient by itself to produce

“extensivity” or global citizenship identity. Further, Dower (2003) insists that acquisition

of knowledge or information about selected humanitarian or global problems is also

insufficient to motivate the ethically/socially/politically purposeful action indicative of

global citizenship practice. What is needed, according to Dower (2003), is a

“motivation” to act upon one’s dispositions and awareness of global problems (p. 20).

The integration of global citizenship knowledge and principles into one’s identity

in such a way as to motivate entering into relations with, and assuming responsibility for,

a non-intimate suffering other requires, I believe, something deeper and more personal: a

cognitive and affective disposition or preparedness not merely to recognize and determine

that another is suffering, but to open up to the suffering of another, and to allow her

suffering to deeply penetrate and impact oneself. That is, one must have a capacity to

recognize, acknowledge and feel a sense of connection to the pain of the other, i.e., to feel

empathy for the pain of the other, and to feel that this pain matters to oneself. Thus, while

principles provide necessary ethical, social, and political justification for global

citizenship practice, the motivation for acting upon one’s global ethic—that is, for

experiencing one’s dispositions and principles as more than merely an intellectual

exercise—necessarily lies within one’s capacity and willingness to empathize with the

face of the suffering other, and to translate that empathy into collaborative and

constructive action on that other’s behalf. Further, I believe this motivation to practice

global citizenship is strengthened through interaction with fellow global citizenship

practitioners in the context of a global citizenship action-learning initiative.

Clarifications

My global ethic consists of twelve ethical/social/political dispositions and

principles that I believe, taken collectively, embody the kind of global citizenship identity

capable of motivating global citizenship practice for non-intimate suffering others.

Before introducing and elaborating upon these dispositions of global citizenship, it is

important to clarify several points regarding both my selection of terminology and the

interrelationship between dispositions.

One essential clarification involves my conception of the terms ethical, social, and

political as they are embedded within my understanding of a disposition. I employ

“ethical” to refer to the cognitive aspect of the dispositions, principles, and standards

informing and guiding one’s awareness and treatment of, and healthful relations with,

other living beings. I prefer the term ethical over the use of “moral” because the latter, for

me, has subtle connotations to both religious thought and the sense of a more rigid and

pre-ordained system of principles, whereas the former term suggests a more humanistic,

less codified orientation that, in turn, is more suggestive of a dispositional perspective in

relation to the other.

Whereas my use of the term “ethical” refers to the dispositional orientation that

informs one’s cognitive perspective of the other, I include the term “social” to remind us

of the unavoidable context of sociality and relation with others within which ethical

dispositions are enacted, experienced, and navigated. This term also suggests the

importance of many key aspects of sociality that influence access to resources and power,

such as cultural, ethnic, religious, racial, and gender identity.

Lastly, just as my introduction of the term social above reminds us of our

fundamental embeddedness within multiple social contexts, my use of the term “political”

is meant to promote recognition of the fact that each of us is born into and embedded

within institutional structures of power and culture. These institutions strongly influence

one’s access to vital resources, conditions, opportunities, and protections that impact the

nature, quality, and constraints of one’s material well-being, relationships, and capacity to

express power; consequently, these same institutions necessarily contribute significantly

to conditions of suffering for those persons or groups lacking favorable access to them.

Consequently, any conscious attempt to critique and address/transform access to

resources, conditions, opportunities, and protections produced or reinforced by political,

cultural, and/or social institutions—whether on the local, national, or transnational level

—as well as any effort to empower or join others in this process, necessarily constitutes

an activity intended to impact, modify, or transform some aspect of this institutional

structure and embeddedness: that is, a political act.

Given my conception of the terms outlined above, the linkage of the ethical,

social, cultural, and political aspects of global citizenship dispositions in the context of

developing and articulating an ethic for global citizenship practice is obvious. No

entrenched suffering or injustice can occur outside of an ethical, social, cultural, and

political context. The global problems that concern global citizens cannot be divorced

from the ethics, social norms, and politics that produce and sustain them. Therefore, I

employ the phrase ethical/social/political to indicate the multiple and interconnected

dimensions of my proposed dispositions of global citizenship. In conclusion, my use of

the term “dispositions” in isolation should always be considered to incorporate the

ethical, social, cultural, and political aspects outlined above.

Secondly, I need to justify my preference of the term disposition over principle.

As indicated above, principles provide the cognitive grounding and justification for the

ethical, social, cultural, and political positions one adopts, and for that reason are an

essential component of a global ethic. However, whereas a principle suggests an ethical

stance both uncompromising and prescriptive, a disposition implies a more flexible

ethical orientation with which one approaches the particularities of a specific ethically,

socially, culturally, and politically charged scenario. That is, while a principle connotes

universality and uniformity of both ethical belief and action, a disposition implies an

affective and empathic component, as well as openness to nuance in how one interprets

and expresses one’s disposition within a particular cultural/social/political milieu.

Further, the notion of a disposition suggests a kind of orientation toward the other that

accentuates connection as a necessary aspect of the application of one’s global ethic. For

these reasons, I have selected the term dispositions to imply a more nuanced approach to

global citizenship conception and implementation.

A final clarification concerns the relationships and sequencing of the dispositions

contained in my global ethic. I conceive of both the selection and sequential ordering of

my selected dispositions as indicative of a kind of narrative portrait of the awakening and

maturation process of a burgeoning global citizenship identity and practitioner. While I

do not wish to create a rigid or absolute developmental framework applicable to all

practicing global citizens, I do intend the sequencing to at least indicate prospective

synergistic connections and relationships between the selected dispositions. With this in

mind, it might be helpful to classify the dispositions of my global ethic according to the

following four interconnected and synergistic processes.

The first process suggests an internal awakening of the cognitively-oriented

ethical pathways to development of a global citizenship identity. This process begins with

recognition of the face of the suffering other as signifying a call to acknowledge his

suffering and to engage in joint “intersubjective ethical relations” towards the restoration

of his dignity. This intersubjective ethical relationship, in turn, embodies a type of ethical

interdependence and interconnection that transcends geographic proximity to suggest, in

both practical and theoretical terms, the principle of interdependence on a global scale, as

well as the dignity and value of all life bonded by this interconnection.

The second process offers a more affective and relational pathway to global

citizenship identity I refer to as “deep compassion.” In this process, empathy is

conceived of as an integrated affective and cognitive motivational resource that

empowers one to experience concern for, and connection with, the suffering other in such

a way that her suffering matters to one’s own sense of well-being. Empathy ensures that

recognition of one’s intersubjective ethical relationship with the face of the other is

“taken to heart.” The growth and development of such empathy enables one to expand

the circle of one’s empathic concern to geographically distant, non-intimate, suffering

others: a process I call “empathic extension.” This experience of empathy, in turn,

provides the foundation for compassion: that is, the acceptance of ethical/social/political

responsibility for addressing the welfare of the suffering other through constructive

intervention.

However, before compassionate intervention (that is, the action-based component

of compassion) can began, it is necessary to undergo an evaluative process whereby one

applies the ethical/social/political standards of human capabilities and human needs,

buttressed by their codification in human rights, to assess whether or not one’s identified

suffering others are, in fact, suffering an injustice: that is, suffering from inequitable

access to the resources, conditions, opportunities, and protections necessary for the

realization of their needs, capabilities, and rights, and the sustenance of dignity. Thus, it

is at this third stage of my global ethic narrative that political institutions and factors

involved with the attainment of needs, capabilities, rights, and dignity become

inextricably linked to the dispositions of global citizenship in determining an assessment

of justice or injustice.

The fourth and final synergistic process contains dispositions leading to the

consummation of a mature global citizenship identity fully capable of engaging in

effective global citizenship practice. The first element of this process involves the

application of “critical consciousness” to determine in what ways the other’s unjust

suffering might be produced and perpetuated by underlying societal and institutional

causes and, hence, to provide guidance regarding the optimal social and political

application of deep compassion in response to this injustice. The second aspect imports

“nonviolence” as an ethical, social, and political injunction against the unnecessary use of

violence as a means of remedying any foundational causes—revealed through the

application of critical consciousness—of a global problem impacting one’s identified

suffering others. Upon completion of this process, an individual is ready to engage in

“global citizenship practice”—optimally through involvement with a community of

fellow global citizenship practitioners embodying a global citizenship community—

involving the concrete application of the entirety of the global ethic outlined here in the

development and implementation of an action plan aimed at relieving the suffering of

one’s identified population of interest, addressing the foundational forces perpetuating

this suffering, and empowering the affected population to participate in all aspects of the

plan.

With these clarifications in mind, I proceed to a fuller examination of each of the

following twelve dispositions that encompass my global ethic.

Ethical Awareness of the Face of the Non-Intimate Suffering Other as Signifying a

Call to Intersubjective Ethical Relationship

It seems self-evident that a multifaceted, intersubjective ethical awareness—the

recognition that one’s connection with the outside world is forged by a type of ethical

awareness that promotes connection to, and responsibility for, the suffering other, whether

he be a member of one’s intimate network of connections, a non-intimate other within

one’s local environs, or a distant, non-intimate other outside geographic proximity—must

be an integral grounding disposition for global citizenship. Indeed, in his interviews with

self-described “global citizens,” Schattle (2008) supports such ethical awareness as the

“clearest identifiable starting point” in developing global citizenship identity (p. 26), as

well as an orientation supportive of “responsibility and participation (p. 27). Further,

Schattle supports the notion that such an ethical lens of responsibility includes an

awareness of the problems and needs of others outside one’s network of intimacy and

acquaintance.

However, whereas Schattle (2008) posits self-awareness as the first step in the

adoption of a global citizenship identity, Sharp (2006) cites Levinas (1998), who offers a

remarkable and, for me, inspiring ethical and ontological assertion: that our recognition of

the suffering other and of our ethical bond (or what I call “ethical awareness”) to her both

precedes and enables self-awareness. Christie (2005) states the transformative

implication of this ethical/ontological assertion:

Levinas (1998) provides a profound challenge to self and other. Levinas

challenges the idea of the rational, autonomous sovereign subject who

acts ethically; instead, he argues that subjectivity is constituted by ethical

responsibility for the other: I cannot know myself and then the other; I

am myself because of my relation to the other: Ethics precedes ontology

(p. 246-47).

What activates this ethical awareness, for Levinas, is the encounter with the face

of the suffering other that calls to the observer of her suffering for assistance in the

restoration of her dignity (Sharp, 2006). In other words, the appeal of the face of the

suffering other creates an intersubjective ethical relationship (Sharp, 2006) in which one

is ethically compelled to respond caringly “prior to any notions of reciprocity and mutual

obligation” (Christie, 2005, p. 247). For Levinas, failure to do otherwise—to assume

ethical responsibility for the suffering other—denies one’s own status as a “moral

subject” and, in turn, represses and distorts one’s own humanity (Sharp, 2006, p. 44). For

Christie (2005), the pedagogical implications of the notion of a non-reciprocal ethics of

care suggest the need for “building a capacity to face suffering and deal with difficult

emotions without denying or rejecting them, and without rationalising them away,” as

well as, “in Levinas's terms, a shattering of our indifference and a willingness to suffer for

the suffering of others” (p. 247).

Buber (1947) identifies several perceptual typologies that promote and sustain

ethical disengagement with the other, including the lenses of the “observer” and the

“onlooker” as well as the posture of avoidance (p. 11 & 19). Indeed, Buber asserts that

“the whole apparatus of our civilization is necessary to preserve men from this

attentiveness and its consequences” (p. 19), by which he seems to be referring to societal

practices and structures that serve to disable our natural inclination to ethical awareness

and its accompanying disposition of empathy and compassion on behalf of the suffering

other. The omnipresence of such ethically disabling practices and postures toward the

other produce, for Buber, a kind of self-protective “armour” whose “familiarity” reduces

or removes it from the level of consciousness such that we “no longer notice” its usage

(p. 12).

However, for Buber (1947), these perceptional modes of ethical distance toward

the other can be overcome through a disposition of “attentiveness” articulated by the act

of “turning towards the other” as a “presence” in “dialogue” (p. 19 & 25). Implied, if

unstated, is the notion that such acknowledgement of the other contains the

accompanying realization of one’s intersubjective ethical relation to that other. For

Buber, then, it appears that ethical relationship with the other requires that one be the

recipient of a kind of ethical “call” for which one “feels . . . approached for an answer”:

that is, a call for acknowledgement of the other as an ethical subject and a prospective

interlocutor (p. 23) or, as Levinas might put it, as a face.

To my view, the foregoing discussion provides a persuasive argument for the

necessity of perceiving the suffering other as an ethical subject for whom one should feel

connection and responsibility. However, unaddressed in this discussion is the question of

whether and how this type of ethical awareness might be used to address the issue of

acting on behalf of non-intimate others outside one’s immediate sensory experience.

That is, how might one develop an intersubjective ethical lens on behalf of geographically

distant, non-intimate, suffering others whose call for ethical intervention is not

necessarily addressed to oneself either solely or at all, except in a metaphorical sense?

This question is of critical importance to global citizenship, as its resolution may reveal

something about the nature and boundaries of ethical responsibility and, hence, of global

citizenship practice. Beginning with the next section, a theoretical and practical response

to this question will be integrated into the unfolding articulation of my global ethic.

Global Ethical Interdependence/Interconnection

The second aspect of my global ethic—global ethical interdependence and

interconnection—seems to follow as a logical corollary of the discussion in the preceding

section regarding intersubjective ethical relationship. As described above, the

prerequisite for the realization of one’s ethical relationship with the suffering other in

one’s midst is acknowledgement of the face of that other, and she of yours. That is,

intersubjective ethical relationship cannot occur in a vacuum; implicit in this relationship

is a kind of connection or dialogue between subjects featuring ethical interdependency

and interconnection. This ethical connection requires an exchange or dialogue in which

both subjects “turn” to respond to the other as a face, each in all his vulnerability. Thus,

ethical interdependency and interconnection seems a necessary marker of the disposition

of intersubjective ethical relationship.

But, can the same sense of ethical interdependency be claimed with respect to

distant non-intimate others? That is, can one extend the claim to ethical interdependence

and interconnection as applying to life in its totality, or at least outside the ken of one’s

immediate environment? If so, what type of justification might one offer for positing

such interdependency/interconnection on a global scale?

Recognition of the biological/environmental interconnection and interdependency

of ecosystems and of the Earth as a whole, as well as the theoretical and ethical models

this recognition suggests, supplies a compelling response to this question. For Rifkin

(2009), such ecological thinking propounds a conception of life as embedded as much

within “a multitude of symbiotic and synergistic relationships” as by the “competitive

struggle between individual creatures for scarce resources” (p. 596). Thus, for Rifkin, life

on our planet consists of intricate and expansive networks of biological relationships that

depend for their perpetuation and sustenance upon human recognition of responsibility as

the ethical dimension of interdependency inherent in such networks: If every human

life, the species as a whole, and all other life-forms are entwined with one another and

with the geochemistry of the planet in a rich and complex choreography that sustains life

itself, then we are all dependent on and responsible for the health of the whole organism.

Carrying out that responsibility means living out our individual lives in our

neighborhoods and communities in ways that promote the general well-being of the

larger biosphere within which we dwell (p. 598-99).

This linkage of holistic ecological thinking with global ethical interdependence is

suggested as well by Noddings (2005), who asserts that the “basic idea of ecology is

interdependence” since such “ecological thinking brings us to consider the effects of life

in one locality on the lives and well-being of distant others” (p. 11). In this way,

Noddings posits interdependence as “a basic concept of global citizenship” (p. 11), while

Schattle (2008) states that “global interdependence” represents “a key consolidating idea

within global citizenship discourse” (p. 44).

Transnational ecological interconnection and ethical interdependence is reinforced

by the tangible reality of our globally connected world, a world encumbered by global

problems containing environmental, economic, and political dimensions that transcend

geographic delineations and overpower the efforts of any single nation to resolve them.

Dower (2003) cites the following list as encompassing global problems for which there is

nearly universal recognition:

global warming and ozone layer depletion; rapid species loss; soil erosion and

desertification; pollution; population growth as a pressure on the environment

and a cause of poverty; world poverty, especially hunger and malnutrition and

endemic diseases; AIDS; racism and the associated inequalities . . . ; the status of

women . . . ; religious and ethnic hatred; violation of human rights . . . ; economic

and sexual exploitation; numerous wars; large-scale movement of refugees;

international crime; international terrorism(;) . . . weapons of mass destruction;

proliferation of arms (p. 18).

While affirming Dower’s inclusion of poverty, hunger, AIDS, environmental

sustainability and gender inequity, The United Nations’ Millennium Development Goals

website Home Page ("Millennium development goals," 2010) adds the global problems of

child and maternal health/mortality and access to primary education.

Recognition of biological/ecological interdependence, as well as the scope and

impact of the types of global problems cited above, necessitate the ethical imperative for

discovering and enacting remedies that honor ethical interdependence and the inherent

value of all life. The practical dimensions of ethical interdependence and interconnection

related to transnational environmental and humanitarian problems have fostered various

forms of global ethical consciousness that transcend the need for geographic proximity,

and support the notion of an intersubjective ethical lens toward geographically distant,

non-intimate, suffering others. For example, Dower (2003) cites “(b)iocentrism” (which

“posits all life as inherently valuable”) and “ecocentrism or environmental holism”

(which “sees value not just in individual living things but in whole ecosystems”) as

examples of such ethical sensibility (p. 89). For Rifkin (2009), the process of attempting

to identify, understand, and “harmonize the many relationships that make up the

lifesustaining forces of the planet” nurtures what he calls “biosphere consciousness” (p.

600). Schattle (2008) enfolds both environmental and humanitarian global concerns

within a form of “(g)lobal citizenship . . . awareness” or “consciousness” that “involves

thinking beyond one’s imagined physical boundaries and recognizing interdependence

among countries, cultures, economies, ecosystems, and all life on the planet” (p. 44).

Such pathways to uncovering and developing the ethical lens of global ethical

interdependence and interconnection contain the moral imperative to recognize the

inherent value of all life as well as our intersubjective ethical responsibility to address the

needless suffering of others, be they members of our local community or distant,

nonintimate others. As Schattle (2008) asserts, “recognition of global interdependence

leads into the moral vision of bridging divisions in one’s mind between one’s immediate

kin and distant strangers” (p. 30). Ultimately, then, the ethical principle of the

interdependency and interconnection of all life, which both emerges from and reinforces

the ethical disposition of intersubjective ethical relationship discussed above, serves to

support the inherent value of all life, the possibility of empathic concern and

compassionate response to distant, non-intimate, suffering others, as well as the ethical

principle of dignity that will be introduced and discussed in the ensuing section.

Dignity

I believe the ethical belief in the dignity of human life—and, more broadly, of all

life—is seminal to any global ethic. This assertion requires a brief elaboration regarding

my conception of dignity.

For me, the notion of dignity is grounded in two distinct yet connected

dimensions: the ethical and the material or practical. That is, dignity suggests to me both

a belief in the inherent, non-instrumental, value of life and recognition of the need for all

living beings to meet their needs and experience their capabilities in the material world.

The practical aspect of dignity contains, I believe, a simple yet overwhelming

argument for its necessary inclusion within any global ethic. Specifically, this practical

dimension contains four elements that are shared by most, if not all, sentient life: an

inborn range of needs and capabilities; the need to have access to certain resources,

conditions, opportunities, and/or protections in order to activate these needs and

capabilities; fragility resulting from the inevitable demise of loved ones and of one’s own

capacity to exercise one’s capabilities; and the suffering fostered by this inevitable

decline. Thus, acceptance of the principle of dignity suggests the need to understand and

support the needs and potentialities of a particular life, and to promote the ability of that

specific other—as well as all others possessing similar needs and capabilities—to access

the resources, conditions, opportunities, and protections needed for their expression.

Within this framework, while a certain level of suffering is unavoidable,

“undeserved” suffering is the result of a failure to obtain access to and to utilize the

resources, conditions, opportunities, and protections necessary to experience one’s

capabilities and meet one’s material needs. Where such deprivation describes the living

situation for groups of people or other living beings due to a systematic failure of society

—intentional or not—to create conditions for realizing their needs and exercising their

capabilities, the resulting suffering is grounded in injustice. This, in turn, supports

Nussbaum’s (2001) assertion that societies should assume responsibility for ensuring the

conditions necessary for realization of human capabilities. Thus, acceptance of the

practical or material dimension of dignity requires one to develop awareness of, and

ethical/social/political concern regarding, the basic resources, conditions, opportunities,

and protections necessary for the expression of human capabilities and needs (and, to the

extent possible, for the capabilities and needs of any sentient being). As Nussbaum

(1997) asserts, “We do not properly respect those capacities if we . . . neglect the needs

they have for resources, or deny that hardships can deprive human beings of flourishing”

(p. 371).

Indeed, it is the individual who is able to exercise the important aspects of her

capabilities or potential that we refer to as having dignity or of living a life worthy of her

existence. Such an individual can express herself in such a way that her personality can

be known and acknowledged by self and others. That is, a person with dignity is

someone with a unique and identifiable face. Consequently, a person with dignity is

someone who can engage in intersubjective ethical relation with others; she can make and

receive ethical claims regarding suffering caused by the deprivation or inaccessibility of

necessary resources and life opportunities. Thus, to experience dignity suggests the

possession of a face that can be acknowledged by others; this in turn implies an

accompanying voice through which one’s needs and desires can be expressed and heard.

Conversely, the failure to have one’s face acknowledged or to have one’s voice

heard regarding this deprivation of one’s flourishing, constitutes the condition of being

“defaced” and/or “devoiced”: a condition which, in turn, denies one the ability to

confront with an equal level of dignity those individuals or institutions responsible for the

suppression or denial of one’s needs or capabilities. This “indignity” of the faceless,

voiceless, distant, non-intimate, suffering other is poignantly described by Ruiz and

Minguez (2001):

Their suffering is felt as an affront to their dignity, something which should

not be. The starting point of morality is the shout, sometimes muffled, of those

who suffer, of the oppressed and excluded, who in this condition find

themselves outside the institutional framework where others can defend their

interests and moral hopes or voice their criticism against the conditions of

inequality (p. 168).

In this context, it is the ethical/social/political responsibility of those whose faces

and voices have been acknowledged by society to participate in restoring dignity to the

suffering other by expanding their awareness of those whose faces remain systematically

unacknowledged and whose voices remain systematically unheard in their suffering.

Only in this way can the possibility of intersubjective ethical relationship be reclaimed.

As Ruiz and Minguez (2001) assert in relation to the “poverty and exploitation”

experienced in developing nations, failure to reestablish such intersubjective ethical

relationship—that is, failure to perceive and understand the systemic suffering of the

distant, non-intimate other—“draws into indignity...not only those suffering poverty and

dependency, but those who cause it” (p. 161). Put affirmatively, recognition of the

problem of indignity as a problem of systemic injustice in which those of us in the

developed world are unavoidably complicit provides us with the ethical/social/political

responsibility and incentive to practice global citizenship for the purpose of assisting the

suffering other in the reclamation of his dignity.

Perhaps it is through this effort to acknowledge and restore the material, social,

and political requirements of dignity, i.e., access to the resources, conditions,

opportunities, and protections necessary for the expression of one’s capabilities and

satisfaction of one’s practical needs, as well as through the realization of the dire

consequences a failure of such restoration would have on the suffering other that the

active global citizen uncovers its ethical dimension: that is, one’s ethical responsibility to

the face and voice of the suffering other. The value of a face and voice cannot be

measured or quantified; nor must it be earned through some meritorious exercise of

capability. The disposition of dignity requires the conception of each face, each life, as

unique and therefore precious. Perhaps it is this ethical (or perhaps one should say

“spiritual”) aspect of dignity, this “irreplaceability of the other,” that appeals most

poignantly to our stance of responsibility for the suffering other (Sharp, 2006, p. 45).

Thus, through recognition of the material and ethical aspects and requirements of dignity,

the vulnerability of suffering others to the condition of indignity, i.e., the loss of face and

voice amidst the inability to claim access to necessary material resources due to societal

inequity and the claims of intersubjective ethical relations, we derive our understanding

of the foundational importance of working toward the renewal and preservation of the

other’s dignity as a seminal responsibility of our global citizenship practice.

Segue to the Second Phase of the Dispositions of Global Citizenship

The primary focus of the global citizenship dispositions of intersubjective ethical

relation, interdependence/interconnection and dignity is to offer a cognitive method or

pathway for developing awareness of the suffering other, as well as of one’s ethical

responsibility for him: that is, a pathway toward global citizenship identity. In the

ensuing three sections, I introduce a second pathway to the adoption of global citizenship

identity: the disposition of empathy and its extension to distant, non-intimate others, and

the compassionate disposition to accept the responsibility to intervene constructively on

behalf of the suffering other. This process of empathic awareness, connection, concern,

and extension, coupled with compassionate responsibility, I term “deep compassion.”

In brief, I will posit empathy and compassion as partners in a four-step process leading to

the practice of global citizenship. First, I regard empathy as designating a capacity for

both cognitive and affective awareness and understanding of the condition and inner

experience/state of the suffering other, as well as an accompanying internal experience of

connection with, and concern for, the status of that other. Compassion denotes the

transformation of empathy into a feeling of responsibility for the suffering other, thereby

supplying the internal motive for proactive constructive action expressive of active global

citizenship. Indeed, Hoffman (2000) seems to support this linkage between empathy and

compassion (with compassion conceived of as caring action): “Empathy and caring

principles are . . . independent, mutually supportive, hence congruent dispositions to help

others” (p. 225).

Implicit in this conception is the contention that empathy by itself is insufficient to

foster active global citizenship. That is, something must occur to transform awareness,

connection, and concern into the more active external expression of responsibility for the

suffering other. If true—and this is my basic position regarding empathy and compassion

—empathy nevertheless embodies an essential and foundational dimension of my global

citizenship ethic, as I believe it must be of any such ethic. I will now turn to an

explication of empathy and its extension to distant, non-intimate others.

Empathy

My conception of empathy concerns the nature of one’s cognitive and affective

experience upon encountering and becoming aware of the face of the suffering other, as

well as the internal connection with and concern for the other fostered by this encounter.

The cognitive aspect of empathy refers here to the ability of the observer to understand

the experience of the other, apart from one’s reaction to or assessment regarding that

experience (Nussbaum, 2001), while the affective dimension of empathy refers to one’s

solidarity with the predicament of that suffering other (Hoffman, 2000). While

Nussbaum’s cognitive conception suggests a level of possible emotional detachment or

unconcern, as if the observer’s primary motivation were to gather information regarding

the state of the other, Hoffman’s affective orientation suggests connection and concern on

behalf of the other.

Ultimately, a conception of empathy as a synthesis of affective and cognitive

dimensions (Hoffman, 2000, p. 3; Rifkin, 2009) appears to be necessary to produce the

“psychological processes that make a person have feelings that are more congruent with

another’s situation than with his own situation” (Hoffman, 2000, p. 30). This capacity to

enter into psychological congruence or connection, imbued with the affective response of

concern, provides the dispositional groundwork for assuming responsibility for, and

taking constructive action on behalf of, the suffering other.

Empathic Extension

I use the phrase “empathic extension” to signify one’s capacity to experience and

express empathy for increasing circles of distant, non-intimate others. Hoffman (2000)

provides a comprehensive developmental account of the triggers and modalities of

empathy leading from the capacity to experience and demonstrate empathy in direct

faceto-face encounters to the possibility of extending one’s empathy toward non-present

others. For Hoffman, the highest empathic level is attained when one realizes that the

plight of a single suffering other serves, in addition to his own suffering, as “an exemplar

of a group or category of people who share his plight” (p. 85). Importantly, Hoffman

conceives of this empathic movement from a focus on one suffering other to a recognition

of many similar suffering others as sequentially linked: “(I)t is hard to imagine a child

being able to empathize with a group before he can empathize with the mental

representation of an individual’s life” (p. 85). (Indeed, this need to derive empathy from

connection to a singular suffering other motivates my insistence, as a teacher, that

students investigating a global problem research stories profiling the way that global

problem is experienced by a particular individual.)

With the additional cognitive capacity to “form social concepts and classify

people into groups,” Hoffman (2000) asserts that youth can extend their empathic

understanding to encompass “the plight not only of an individual but also of an entire

group or class of people such as those who are economically impoverished, politically

oppressed, social outcasts, victims of war” (p. 85). This cognitive empathic capability

activates, in turn, the affective dimension of empathy as one imagines the suffering of the

non-present others (Hoffman, 2000). In this way, the reach of empathy, i.e., empathic

extension, transcends the need for “the other’s physical presence” to potentially embrace

anyone within the realm of one’s empathic or moral imagination (Hoffman, 2000, p. 92).

However, Hoffman (2000) cites two types of “empathic biases” that provide

resistance to this potential for such empathic extension, namely “familiarity bias” and

“here-and-now bias” (p. 197). By “familiarity bias,” Hoffman refers to the inclination of

“most people” to experience a greater degree of empathy for family members, friends,

and people with similar needs and concerns (p. 197), while “here-and-now bias” fosters

greater empathic concern for people within one’s immediate locale (p. 14). This

propensity to respond with heightened empathy to familiar or present others can, in turn,

foster a greater likelihood for constructive action on behalf of these others (Hoffman,

2000).

Fortunately, Hoffman (2000) offers a pathway for mitigating this resistance to

empathic extension to distant, non-intimate, suffering others through the

developmentally-appropriate introduction of moral principles. That is, the integrated

force of empathy and moral principles can—when activated by, for example, witnessing

the unjust suffering of a present other—transcend or enlarge the significance of this

particular instance of suffering to be representative of “a larger category of injustice or

lack of human concern” as outlined above (Hoffman, 2000, p. 221). For Rifkin (2009),

the burgeoning political, social, and economic interconnections between diverse

individuals, cultures, and organizations, fostered by the capacity of modern technologies

to promote and sustain such connections with geographically distant others, provide an

additional pathway for overcoming empathic bias and extending empathy on a global

scale.

Ultimately, the extension of empathic concern to distant, non-intimate others

promoted by the processes outlined above suggests a concomitant expansion of the notion

of “family,” i.e., of “membership” in one’s “circle of concern” (Nussbaum, 2001, p. 319).

To this end, Hoffman (2000) urges us to assume the task of “imagining strangers as part

of one’s family” (p. 213) and appeals for an “empathic moral education that promotes

crossing boundaries and empathizing beyond one’s group” (p. 249) in order to “reduce

empathic bias and create a sense of human oneness…in our contemporary, increasingly

multicultural society” (p. 23). Indeed, the use of “family” and similar phrases such as

“human family” (Luhmann, cited in Ruiz & Minguez, 2001, p. 158) and “extended

family” (Rifkin, 2009, p. 443) as ethical metaphors for the possibility of global empathic

extension are becoming commonplace within global citizenship discourse. Additionally,

citing the increasing mobility and migration occurring in our “globalizing world,” Rifkin

asserts that the “increasingly multireligious, multicultural, and multiracial” makeup of our

modern “family identities” are becoming “in a very real sense…mini diasporas” (p. 463).

This “multicultural identity” promotes both openness to diversity and a “richer reservoir

of personal experiences and feelings to draw upon in expressing empathy to others”

(Rifkin, 2009, p. 438).

The arguments cited above support the notion of empathic extension for

nonintimate suffering others, both local and distant, as both a possible and a desirable

ethical/social/political goal of global citizenship. Indeed, the disposition of empathy and

its capacity to promote widening networks of connection and concern on behalf of

distant, non-intimate, suffering others constitutes a foundational aspect of my global ethic

and of my pedagogical interaction with children.

Further, mature empathy provides the motivation and foundation for the

assumption of responsibility for the welfare of the suffering other through compassionate

intervention. According to Hoffman (2000), empathy and the empathic distress that

accompanies it can promote “empathy-based helping…to alleviate the victim’s distress”

(p. 33). Hoffman cites “countless studies showing that when people witness others in

distress, they typically respond empathically or with an overt helpful act” (p. 31).

Further, Hoffman cites an earlier study of his that suggests that “empathic arousal

precedes and motivates helping,” thereby suggesting a direct causal link between

empathy and compassionate intervention (p. 32). Consequently, I will now turn my

attention to an examination of the disposition of compassion, as well as to the

interconnection between empathy and compassion.

Compassion

While empathy is essential in forging connection and concern between diverse

and distant others, by itself it does not ensure a feeling of ethical and personal

responsibility that, in turn, promotes constructive intervention on behalf of the suffering

other. Rather, it is the combination of the motive force of ethical/social/political

responsibility for the suffering other coupled with constructive action that unleashes the

connective power of empathy and defines the essence of compassion. As Oliner and

Oliner (1988) assert:

(e)motional empathy for pain . . . does not necessarily result in a helping

response. Rather than attempting to alleviate the pain, one may choose to

escape it—by physically removing oneself from the problem, denying it,

devaluing the victim, or perhaps contenting himself with some slight gesture.

When personal responsibility for alleviating pain is assumed, however, action on

behalf of the victim is more likely (p. 174).

Thus, As Ruiz and Vallejos (1999) proclaim, compassion is indicative of

responsibility for the other as revealed through action on her behalf: “Compassion . . .

can be understood as help, commitment and protest . . . founded on the recognition of the

responsibility we feel towards all human beings” (p. 7). Given the clear partnership

between the dispositions of empathy and compassion, it is important to explore the

possible sources of this feeling of responsibility for the suffering other, which represents,

for me, the pivot point or link between empathy and compassion.

Oliner and Oliner (1988) approach this linkage of concern for, and action on

behalf of, the non-intimate suffering other by positing three generic motivational catalysts

for animating the life-saving actions of Holocaust rescuers; each of these catalysts are

indicative of the type of extensive global citizenship identity referred to above.

The “empathic” orientation is grounded in the desire to offer compassion focused

on the needs of a specific other with whom one has developed an interpersonal

connection (Oliner & Oliner, 1988, p. 189).

By contrast, the “normocentric” orientation prompts compassionate action

resulting from identification with and allegiance to the rules, mores, and beliefs of a

specific “social reference group,” while failure to abide by the cultural guidelines of this

group can produce shame (Oliner & Oliner, 1988, p. 199). The fact that 52 percent of

Holocaust rescuers, according to the authors, were normocentrically oriented (Oliner &

Oliner, 1988, p. 221) strongly suggests the impact of culture on ethical behavior and

norms, as well as the importance of consciously developing and promoting an ethical

culture conducive to the dispositions of global citizenship.

Lastly, for a relatively small percentage of rescuers, the catalyst for their

compassionate intervention was the development of specific ethical values, principles, or

beliefs, the violation of which produced “strong moral indignation” and a “(compulsion)

to act more out of a sense of these principles than empathy for the victims” (Oliner &

Oliner, 1988, p. 209). Specifically, persons with this orientation tended to espouse “two

kinds of moral principles—the principle of justice (the right of innocent people to be free

from persecution) and the principle of care (the obligation to help the needy)” (Oliner &

Oliner, 1988, p. 209). Importantly, the principle of caring identified here, as indicated, is

rooted in principled obligation or duty, not in the type of interpersonal connection and

concern emblematic of empathically oriented persons. That is, whereas the “empathic

motivation focuses on specific individuals whose needs assume paramount importance

over others, . . . the ethic of care emerges . . . as a concern with minimizing overall harm

to all to as large an extent as possible. The interests of individuals may be subordinated

to the greater good” (Oliner & Oliner, 1988, p. 217).

For Hoffman (2000), neither moral principles nor empathic distress, operating in

isolation, have sufficient motive force to encourage prosocial action (p. 239 & 245).

Rather, for Hoffman, the pathway by which the connection and concern fostered by

empathy can foster a feeling of responsibility to take action on behalf of the suffering

other involves a merging of the affective component of empathy with specific moral

principles. That is, Hoffman believes that it is the combination of the empathic and

principles-based orientations cited by Oliner and Oliner (1988) above that unleashes the

connective power of empathy and defines the essence of compassion.

The foregoing begs the question: What ethical principle(s) are likely, when

combined with empathy, to produce a motivation conducive to compassionate

intervention on behalf of the suffering other? For Hoffman (2000), the interjection of the

principle of justice—with respect to issues of the equitable distribution of society’s

valued goods and services, access to and ownership of property, punishment, human

rights, and/or entitlements—provides this motivation. More specifically, Hoffman asserts

that empathy promotes advocacy for “allocating resources according to people’s needs

regardless of their productivity” (p. 228).

This conception of justice as grounded in the assessment of human needs—what

Hoffman (2000) calls “need-based justice”—places an emphasis on determining what

societal resources are truly needed as well as identifying persons lacking these needs as

“victim(s) of injustice whose rights have been violated” (p. 229). This needs-based

emphasis, in turn, provides one’s empathy with the orientation, justification and “motive”

to “rectify violations of justice to others” (Hoffman, 2000, p. 229) through active

intervention, i.e., compassion. Thus, embedding empathy within the ethical principle of

justice, with a focus on rectifying injustice, provides a “motive to help the most

vulnerable” through the adoption of responsibility for, and constructive intervention on

behalf of, suffering others (Hoffman, 2000, p. 236). Ruiz & Vallejos (1999) support

Hoffman’s assertion of the need to integrate empathy within the ethical principle of

justice.

Thus, an integrated empathy—that is, empathy grounded in both the cognitive and

affective dimensions of empathic distress—activated by a needs-based assessment of the

deprivation of the dignity of the suffering other, produces a feeling of indignation at this

injustice and an accompanying responsibility for the suffering other that finds expression

in compassionate action to alleviate such injustice. In this way, “(C)ompassion inevitably

expresses itself in the fight for justice,” with a particular focus on “those whom society

condemns to misery and to the status of outcast, those whose dignity has been taken

away” (Arteta, cited in Ruiz & Vallejos, 1999, p. 158), i.e., those who suffer from the

indignity of lacking a public face and voice.

Indeed, the assessment of indignity produced by systemic injustice violates not

only the dignity of the suffering other; it diminishes the dignity of the observer of

suffering who recognizes her intersubjective ethical relationship with the suffering other:

that is, injustice violates the dignity of both parties of an intersubjective ethical

relationship. Thus, to the extent that one adopts the stance of observer or bystander when

confronted by unjust suffering, one’s own dignity is diminished as well. Consequently, it

is the ethical/social/political mission of compassion to work to restore the dignity of all

parties involved in intersubjective ethical relationship with the suffering other through

tangible and caring efforts to address the injustice that produces indignity.

From a pedagogical perspective, these conclusions support the need for educators

to provide their students with opportunities to understand, experience, and apply their

burgeoning empathic and compassionate sensibilities in concrete scenarios, as well as to

engage in dialogue and introspection aimed at developing their own ethical principles and

dispositions, within the context of a supportive pedagogical environment. This process,

in turn, must activate the voice and empowerment of one’s own students, as well as of

those others to whom one is engaged in intersubjective ethical relations. This is precisely

the purpose of an effective global citizenship community or community of conscience.

Segue to the Third Phase of the Dispositions of Global Citizenship

The preceding analysis offers an explanation for the development of deep

compassion: that is, the progression from empathic connection to, and concern for, the

suffering other, to a feeling of responsibility and a commitment to undertake

compassionate intervention aimed at restoring her dignity by addressing the injustice

responsible for her suffering. However, an ethical/social/political standard is still needed

to assist one in determining what resources, conditions, opportunities, and protections are

truly necessary for leading a life of dignity, the lack of which constitutes an injustice. In

other words, it is necessary to establish a basis or marker for assessing with reasonable

confidence that the dignity of the suffering other has indeed been compromised,

suppressed, or violated in such a way as to inspire the necessity for compassionate

intervention.

In the next section, I will elaborate upon two principles that, I believe, can act

collaboratively to provide the appropriate standards for making this determination:

human capabilities and human needs. In the ensuing section of this chapter, I will

introduce human rights as representing the codified framework in which access to the

resources, conditions, opportunities, and protections necessary for attainment of one’s

human needs and capabilities, i.e., the material and ethical requirements of human

dignity, are guaranteed by society as entitlements. Lastly, I will posit justice as the

evaluative principle for assessing the effectiveness of those societal institutions

responsible for ensuring the equitable distribution of, and access to, those resources,

conditions, opportunities, and protections necessary for human dignity. This combined

application of ethical/social/political standards—human capabilities, human needs, and

human rights—necessary for dignity, as well as the evaluative principle of justice for

determining whether or not these standards for human dignity have been met, constitutes

the third phase of the “narrative” of my global ethic.

Human Capabilities and Human Needs

Nussbaum (2000) proposes the notion of capabilities as the best available ethical

benchmark for an assessment of the validity of compassionate action on behalf of the

maintenance or restoration of human dignity (p. 69). Nussbaum (2000) seeks to promote

societal structures and supports that ensure the resources, conditions, opportunities, and

protections necessary to lead a life of dignity: that is, a life “worthy of a human being”

(p. 73). Consequently, Nussbaum’s capabilities approach requires the identification and

development of a list of those human capabilities that are truly indispensable to the

promotion of “flourishing” (Nussbaum, 2001), i.e., a dignified life, as well as a notion of

what resources, conditions, opportunities, and protections would enable persons to have

the realistic potential to experience and develop these capabilities in the material world.

To this end, Nussbaum (2001) proposes a list of “central human capabilities”—

encompassing areas of capability such as bodily health and security; mental, emotional,

and social development and expression; political participation; and ownership rights (p.

416-18)—whose activation, development and expression are imperative for the

experience of human dignity or flourishing regardless of the cultural context (Nussbaum,

2000). In this way, the cognitive motivation for what Nussbaum (2001) calls

“compassion”—which seems to be closer to my conception of empathy as outlined above

—is the recognition that certain core resources, conditions, opportunities, and protections

for the exercise of human capability are being denied to some person or group (p. 374).

For Nussbaum, the capabilities approach places an obligation on society that is not

just ethical, but political and educational. That is, if one accepts the connection between

dignity and the exercise of human capabilities, then failure to create political, legal and

educational structures conducive to and supportive of such capabilities can produce

conditions of indignity and injustice (Nussbaum, 2001). This suggests the political

obligation to conceive of the development and practice of such capabilities as

entitlements or rights, the “deprivation of which” may be thought of as “tragic”

(Nussbaum, 2001, p. 418). Consequently, one of the central ethical and educational

obligations is to educate all citizens about the theory and practical importance of human

capabilities (Nussbaum, 2001). In this way, citizens will not only be aware of their own

capabilities and their accompanying right to exercise and develop them, they will be

armed with an awareness that can serve as a kind of evaluative lens for identifying

conditions in which the suffering of self or others constitutes a genuine violation of

dignity, requiring compassionate intervention.

I find Nussbaum’s capabilities argument appealing for a number of reasons. First,

Nussbaum’s positing of dignity as a foundational ethical disposition—the absence or

violation of which requires compassionate intervention—supports the central positioning

of dignity within my own global ethic. Second, I support Nussbaum’s conception of the

material aspects of dignity as embedded in access to the resources, conditions,

opportunities, and protections necessary to activate the widest possible range of human

capabilities. Third, given this need for tangible resources for activating human potential,

I applaud Nussbaum’s efforts at identifying and positing an actual list of specific

capabilities in support of the concrete/material dimension of her ethical position. Lastly, I

thoroughly support Nussbaum’s assertion of societal responsibility for introducing and

educating one’s citizenry regarding such a capabilities list, as long as it remains open to

public examination, debate and, if necessary, revision.

Closely related to Nussbaum’s capabilities approach to identifying the resources,

conditions, opportunities, and protections necessary for the establishment of human

dignity is the notion of human needs. As discussed in the previous section of this chapter,

Hoffman (2000) provides a persuasive argument for linking justice with the realization of

some unspecified list of human needs or what he calls “need-based justice.” From the

perspective of a Montessori educator, McFarland (2004) supports the linkage of dignity

and human needs:

In order for peace to flourish and human dignity to be sustained, people's

basic needs for food, clothing, shelter, safety, health care, education, work,

and freedom must be met. In our Montessori classrooms we focus on the basic

needs of people and encourage the children to develop understanding,

empathy, and compassion for others. This work often culminates in various

service learning projects where the children become involved in thoughtfully

helping others (p. 25).

McFarland’s emphasis on the use of school-based service-learning projects to

facilitate these ethical/social/political connections suggests the importance of youth

engagement and empowerment in confronting the problems of equitable distribution and

access regarding the resources, opportunities, conditions, and protections required for

people to experience the dignity threshold. This notion of youth empowerment through

compassionate intervention on behalf of identifiable suffering others implicitly challenges

youth participants to adopt a global ethic grounded in an empathic and justicebased

respect for the dignity of others, and supported by the recognition that all people,

including children, can act constructively to promote the type of world envisioned by

such a global ethic.

Given their mutual emphasis on the material dimension of dignity as the

ethical/social/political criteria for determining situations for which compassionate

intervention is justified, there must necessarily be significant overlap between the types

of items articulated in Nussbaum’s central human capabilities list and those likely to be

cited in a list of human needs. Both types of lists would necessarily address concerns for

satisfaction of the physical, emotional, cognitive, and social dimensions of human

capability of each member of society, as well as the importance of having some

reasonable level of participation in the political decision-making processes involved in

developing and maintaining societal systems and institutions necessary for their

attainment. Indeed, one of the key activities that I utilize in my global citizenship

pedagogy with middle school youth involves brainstorming the types of resources,

conditions, opportunities, and protections that might be necessary to enable the human

needs and capabilities of each person. Thus, my pedagogical efforts and my global ethic

support the conjoining of both the capabilities and the human needs approaches as critical

in establishing a framework for conceiving of and upholding human dignity, as well as

for assessing if suffering is connected to injustice, i.e., to the systemic deprivation, denial,

or violation of those resources, conditions, opportunities, and protections essential for

dignity, and therefore in need of compassionate remedy.

Human Rights

With the establishment of an ethical/social/political framework for assessing the

need for compassionate intervention on behalf of the suffering other, the development of

human rights as ethical, social, and political entitlements in support of the realization of

human needs and capabilities follows naturally. This direct linkage between needs,

capabilities, and rights suggests the universality of human rights and, hence, their

deserved status as entitlements. That is, since human needs and capabilities are universal

or essentially unvarying for all people and, further, since satisfying and activating them

are necessary for dignity, human rights in support of human needs and capabilities must

be both necessary for, and applicable to, every person: hence, all people must be entitled

to them. Thus, human rights highlight the universality of human needs, capabilities, and

dignity. This feature of universality embodied in human rights implies, then, the “equal

moral status of all human beings” (Dower, 2003, p. 54), as well as the ethical membership

of all people within “one moral sphere or community” (Dower, 2003, p. 56).

Consequently, human rights should be viewed as codified affirmations of the

societal obligation to create institutions that provide and foster the resources, conditions,

opportunities, and protections necessary for the realization of human dignity. Thus, in my

view, human rights cannot be disentangled from human needs and capabilities; rather,

they serve as ethical, social, and political commitments on a societal and global level to

strive toward their realization.

In addition to their moral power as outlined above, the existence of actual human

rights covenants, declarations, and treaties highlights the political dimension of human

rights, in terms of currently existing political freedoms and constraints, as well as

political aspirations toward a preferred future global polity. With regard to current

human rights documents, Myers (2006) asserts that such documents “provide a basis for

the protection of individual and group rights in light of national and international

violations” based on “the universal premise that all people hold the same unconditional

rights” (p. 375-76). Thus, for Dower (2003), human rights “constitute(s) a legal and

institutional framework in which global citizenship is now embodied in the world”

(p. 54).

The universal moral applicability of human rights further suggests their potential

for an even more extensive political global application in the future. To this end, Dower

(2003) cites the “aspirational” capacity of current human rights law to “strengthen the

international human rights regime” (p. 54), while Gaudelli and Fernekes (2004) posit

human rights as “a core element of the transcendent move toward a global civic culture,

establishing a foundation for fairness and justice that is potentially universal” (p.17).

Thus, human rights play a vital dual role on behalf of the conception and practice

of global citizenship. From a practical perspective, human rights reinforce and legitimate

the ethical, social, and political obligation of local, national, and international governing

bodies to work towards the realization of the capabilities, needs, and dignity of each and

every person. This obligation, in turn, supports the ongoing work of “watchdog”

organizations to cast an evaluative light on the actual commitment and effectiveness of

such governing and institutional bodies in honoring human rights.

From an aspirational perspective, the embodiment of human rights within

documents adopted on a global scale supports development of a global framework and

ethic with regards to human needs and capabilities, which in turn facilitates the growth of

global civil society, along with political and legal institutions and structures to support it.

Thus, while the notion of human rights is inseparable from any aspirational conception of

global citizenship, it concurrently provides ethical and political backing regarding the

importance of providing compassionate intervention to address the violation, denial, or

suppression of the human needs and/or capabilities—hence, the dignity—of the suffering

other, whether local or distant.

Justice

While the seminal role of justice within my global ethic has been alluded to

above, it is at this point in the progression of my global ethic narrative that justice—and

its converse, injustice—must be reframed and highlighted. The preceding sections

regarding the linkage between capabilities, human needs, dignity, and human rights

legitimate the notion of justice as the ethical/social/political principle for evaluating the

relative success of societal institutions—including the global community of nations—in

developing political, social, and economic conditions that enable the realization of human

dignity. That is, with the identification of specific human capabilities and human needs

as integral to dignity, and with the establishment of the political and ethical validity of

capabilities and needs through their codification within human rights documents, justice

emerges as the ethical/political principle for evaluating the relative success of any given

society or the world at large in promoting human dignity. Specifically, a society may be

deemed “just” to the extent that its institutions provide access to those resources,

conditions, opportunities, and protections necessary to promote human dignity as

articulated through lists of human capabilities and needs, as well as the human rights

documents that codify them. Conversely, the failure of a society to create the conditions

necessary for human dignity creates indignity and injustice.

A central concern in the consideration of justice is the approach one should

advocate and, if possible, adopt toward enabling access to the necessary resources,

conditions, opportunities, and protections for the attainment of dignity. That is, one must

consider the optimal method by which resources are obtained, distributed, or, as

necessary, redistributed to ensure the type of access cited above.

Hoffman (2000) cites three major guiding principles one might adopt regarding

this issue of resource allocation: equality, merit and needs. From the equality

perspective, the equal “intrinsic worth” of each individual suggests that each person

should, in turn, “receive the same amount” (Hoffman, 2000, p. 228). By contrast,

“(M)erit-based justice calls for allocating resources according to the amount or quality of

goods and services an individual contributes: that is, the individual’s productivity, effort,

or competence” (Hoffman, 2000, p. 227). Lastly, Hoffman cites a need-based justice, as

mentioned above, that proposes the allocation of resources “according to people’s needs

regardless of their productivity” (p. 228).

Of these principles, Hoffman (2000) asserts that “[E]mpathic emotions…are

clearly congruent with ‘caring’ and with the ‘need’ version of justice” (p. 250). Hoffman

explains this empathic preference for need-based justice by offering the scenario of a

bystander observing a suffering other in need of food and shelter. According to Hoffman,

the “empathic distress” of the bystander may produce a compassionate response based on

the application of a principle of care; however, if the bystander “views food and shelter as

everyone’s ‘right,’ then his empathic distress may be transformed in part into a needbased

justice response” (p. 229). From this justice orientation, the suffering other “deserves

(author’s bold) food and shelter,” while “(T)he bystander then not only has empathic

feelings for the victim’s personal distress but also sees him or her as a victim of injustice

whose rights have been violated” (Hoffman, 2000, p. 229). This recognition of injustice,

according to Hoffman, produces the motivation necessary to strive to “rectify the injustice

when someone else is treated unjustly” (p. 228), with an emphasis on “the most

vulnerable” (p. 236).

Thus, Hoffman provides us with a direct conceptual linkage for the process which

produces active compassionate intervention on behalf of the suffering other, as motivated

by empathic distress and cognitive recognition of the unjust violation of the other’s

human rights to the resources, conditions, opportunities, and protections necessary for

sustaining his human needs and capabilities. This process, when activated in the final

stage of my global ethic, describes what I refer to as global citizenship practice.

Segue to the Fourth Phase of the Dispositions of Global Citizenship

Before engaging in global citizenship practice to address injustice, there are, in my

view, two remaining global citizenship dispositions and principles that require activation.

To review briefly, the progression of the dispositions and principles introduced and

outlined above suggest an interconnected process through which one may turn with

empathic awareness toward the face of the suffering other and find the motivation to

respond with active compassion to assist him in restoring his dignity by working to help

him obtain the resources, conditions, opportunities, and protections necessary to realize

his capabilities and human needs. In addition, I have posited that access to such

resources, conditions, opportunities, and protections are codified through human rights

documents, the violation of which constitutes injustice, i.e., a condition of indignity that

signals the need for compassionate intervention through the restoration of justice and

dignity.

However, the foregoing roadmap of my global ethic does not, to this point in my

articulation, provide direction regarding the process an active global citizen might or

should undergo to uncover the underlying or systemic causes of injustice; nor does it

offer ethical, social or political guidelines or constraints regarding the process through

which an active global citizen should seek to confront or address these causes. To

address these problems, I will introduce critical consciousness and nonviolence as the

final dispositions/principles in need of activation and examination prior to the decision to

engage in global citizenship practice, the combination of which constitutes the fourth and

final phase of my global ethic.

Critical Consciousness

Freire (1970/1997) posits the term “conscientizacao” or critical consciousness to

describe the process through which persons suffering injustice arrive, through dialogical

examination, at a recognition of themselves as “Subjects…who know and act, in contrast

to objects, which are known and acted upon” (p. 18). Through this process of

empowerment, victims of injustice seek to identify and uproot oppressive and unjust

societal structures at the root of systemic suffering (Freire, 1970/1997). Ultimately, this

process aims at the creation of a new social order “which makes possible the pursuit of a

fuller humanity” (Freire, 1970/1997, p. 29).

Freire’s conception of critical consciousness contains four elements critical to,

and supportive of, my global ethic. First, as cited above, critical consciousness empowers

all people to establish and/or assert their identity and agency as dignified, capable, and

proactive “subjects” capable of addressing injustice and oppression. Second, such

critique requires examination and identification of societal and global institutions,

practices, and ethical orientations that perpetuate systematic injustice and indignity and

the consequent need to address these foundational causes of human suffering in order to

eradicate such suffering. Third, if successful, such critique can reveal the existence and

reality of suffering others previously “hidden” behind the “cloak of invisibility” erected

by institutions, practices, and ways of understanding the world and perceiving the other.

Fourth, the revelation of the ways in which societal institutions, practices, and ethical

lenses produce and/or perpetuate injustice and the “invisibility” of suffering others

suggests specific direction and focus for the global citizenship practice and strategies one

may adopt in response to one’s critique.

Initially, critical consciousness raises one’s awareness of “hegemony,” i.e., what

McLaren defines as “the maintenance of domination not by sheer exercise of force but

primarily through consensual social practices, social forms, and social structures

produced in specific sites such as the church, the state, the school, the mass media, the

political system and the family" (p. 177 in McLaren (1998), cited in Cipolle, 2004, p. 13).

Through these institutions and processes the invisibility of the suffering other is

sanctioned and maintained. However, if some member(s) of these “invisible others”

manage—whether through their own courageous efforts, the observer’s

ethical/social/political awareness and sensibility, or some combination of both—to

emerge through this invisibility to shine a public light on their plight, the societal forces,

systems, and practices cited above are reinforced by “myths and values which inhibit us

from seeing the role of power, privilege, and domination” in preserving the “worldview”

of the status quo (Cipolle, 2004, p. 13). Fundamentally, then, the purpose of critical

consciousness is to foster dissonance between the “givenness” of the worldview offered

to us by our entrenched institutions of power, and the reality revealed through our critical

eye regarding the way in which these institutions serve to preserve the power and

privilege of the status quo.

Cipolle (2004) cites Allman (2001) and Mayo (1999) to assert that a central

mission of the transformative educator is to facilitate the “counter-hegemonic” work of

“assist(ing) students in moving from a commonly held view of the world…to a critical

view of reality… through problem-posing and dialectical thinking” (p. 13). Only through

such critical examination can one begin to recognize, name, and transform the systemic

structures that create and perpetuate the conditions of dehumanizing oppression that

reduce individual “Subjects” to “things” (Freire, 1970/1997, p. 46). Further, only through

such a process might the invisibility of the faces of suffering others be revealed and

brought to light, precipitating the possibility for an ethical relationship between subjects,

i.e., an intersubjective ethical relationship aimed at the restoration of dignity and justice

through mutual engagement in global citizenship practice.

Nonviolence

Within the context of my global ethic, I employ nonviolence as both a

lifeaffirming commitment to daily intrapersonal and interpersonal practices aimed at

cultivating peace within oneself and one’s network of association, and as an

ethical/social/political sanction against the use of violence as an antidote for addressing

indignity and injustice. In my view, nonviolence is both ethically necessary and logically

consistent with the preceding global citizenship dispositions and principles introduced in

this chapter. My reasoning follows as an ethical outgrowth of the universal applicability

of the second and third dispositions/principles of my global ethic: that is, the

interdependence and interconnection amongst all living beings and the dignity inherent in

all life. To plan and commit an act of violence would clearly violate these ethical

dispositions, since one is required to posit the dignity of all others, even those whom one

may deem as the perpetrators of suffering. Such a restriction on the conscious use of

violence to address systemic suffering suggests the need to try to include all others, even

suspected perpetrators of violence and injustice, within one’s circle of concern.

Thus, I posit three essential outlets for the expression of nonviolence: first, to

avoid harm or injury to life, as well as to protect, heal, and preserve life wherever

possible; second, to develop and practice ways of thinking, feeling, and acting that

promote peace within oneself and nurturing relations with others; and third, as a

commitment to use nonviolent strategies to confront courageously those societal

institutions and practices deemed through critical consciousness to be the causes of

suffering, with hope for the possibility of transformation of the person, group, or societal

institution responsible for creating conditions of indignity and injustice. Far from

depicting a negative or fear-based posture of avoidance of suffering, each of these

interconnected aspects of nonviolence requires and reinforces recognition of dignity and

of the sanctity and interconnectedness of life and, in turn, calls one to life-affirming

behavior on intrapersonal, interpersonal, and societal levels of focus, as well as to an

orientation toward moral courage in the face of injustice. As part of this affirmation, the

orientation of nonviolence requires social critique and courageous intervention where

societal structures and/or practices are deemed to be the cause of suffering. Thus,

nonviolence, as conceived here, represents an ethical/social/political disposition derived

from compassionate encounter with, and recognition of, the suffering other and of the

injustice that produces it. The same face that awakens intersubjective ethical relations,

promotes recognition of interconnectedness and dignity, and inspires deep compassion,

compels nonviolence as an ethical/social/political disposition in relation to all others, be

they the victims, perpetrators, collaborators, or passive enablers of suffering.

Before proceeding to the final disposition of my global ethic, it is important to

offer a note of qualification regarding nonviolence. It should be clear that certain

historical and contemporary contexts display such a level of violence, indifference, and/or

callousness to the value of life and its material prerequisites that little, if any, realistic

opportunity for successful redress through the practice of nonviolence may be possible—

at least not without a predictable sacrifice of life on an enormous scale. I do not believe

anyone living safely outside such oppressive conditions can sit in moral judgment of

those who may, as a last resort, choose to abandon nonviolence as their method of

combating and redressing the systemic suffering of self or others. However, I would

suggest that the intentional use of violence disqualifies one from participation in the type

of global citizenship ethic offered in this chapter and recasts one’s identity and action

within a qualitatively different ethical/social/political discourse. Whether or not violent

action in the face of injustice can represent a viable alternative global citizenship

narrative would be for those who use violence to explain.

Global Citizenship Practice

The consummation of my global ethic finds expression through engagement in

active global citizenship or global citizenship practice—preferably within the context of a

community of global citizenship practitioners or global citizenship community—through

planned action targeted at addressing injustice and indignity in collaboration with and/or

on behalf of an identifiable population adversely impacted by such conditions. I will

elaborate more fully upon the forms of global citizenship practice in the literature review

about service-learning pedagogy—or what I will refer to as global citizenship

actionlearning—in Chapter Three and, again, in Chapter Five, where I will examine the

efforts of my middle school students and me to practice global citizenship through

implementation of a global citizenship action-learning initiative. It suffices for now to

reiterate that global citizenship practice, especially as conducted within the context of a

global citizenship action-learning initiative, represents the fruition of my global ethic.

Summary

Taken collectively, then, the twelve ethical/social/political dispositions and

principles that encompass my global ethic depict an interconnected, four-part “narrative”

of the birth and maturation process of a global citizenship identity. This narrative begins

with three ethical dispositions that inspire—through recognition of the suffering other—

the internal realization that each of us is born into, and remains at all times embedded

within, a matrix of interconnected ethical relation with all others. Specifically, awareness

of the face of the other promotes recognition that her suffering signifies an ethical call to

engage with the other as a subject, i.e., to engage in an intersubjective ethical relationship

of responsibility toward and with that other. The interdependent ethical nature of this

relationship writ large—as understood through an ecological or biosphere perspective, as

well as through awareness of global problems that threaten the fabric of this interwoven

network of life—suggests, in turn, the ethical principle of the interdependence and

interconnection of all life. Through this principle one recognizes that the suffering of the

other—including that of the distant non-intimate other—resonates with and impacts one’s

ethical identity. Further, recognition of the face of the other, as well as of our ethical

interconnection with him, fosters awareness of his inherent dignity: that is, awareness of

the natural capabilities and needs specific to the other’s well-being embedded within the

context of the unavoidable fragility and impermanence of those capabilities and of life

itself.

The second phase of this global citizenship narrative—what I call deep

compassion—reveals and explicates the impact of empathy and compassion in

transforming recognition of one’s intersubjective relation to the suffering other from

concern and connection to a posture of responsibility to work towards the restoration of

the other’s dignity. Specifically, recognition of the failure of the other to attain or

experience the resources, conditions, opportunities, and protections necessary for

realizing her dignity inspires an empathic response of distress that infuses concern for,

and connection with, the suffering other in one’s midst and, with sufficient maturity and

direction, empathic extension to the geographically distant, non-intimate other. When

conjoined with a conception of dignity as connected to justice as outlined above, empathy

prompts an affective and ethical feeling of responsibility for working to restore the

dignity of the suffering other through engagement in constructive, remedial action in

collaboration with the suffering other or on her behalf through the application of

compassion.

Before one can intelligently engage in compassionate intervention, one must be

guided by a determination of human capabilities and human needs necessary to lead a

dignified life, as well as those resources, conditions, opportunities, and protections that

will promote these capabilities and needs. This emphasis on the material, social, and

political requirements of dignity, as well as of the ethical imperative to foster the dignity

of all, suggests the need for their official sanction and codification as human rights, i.e.,

rights to which all people should be entitled at birth and throughout one’s life simply by

virtue of being human. (Indeed, assessment of capabilities and needs, and their

subsequent codification through rights, should be applicable, where possible, to

consideration of the dignity of non-human species.) Such societal acknowledgement of

the universality of human capabilities and needs, and of their linkage to an ethical and

material conception of dignity, suggests justice as the ethical/social/political designation

for that condition whereby society and its institutions create conditions conducive to the

realization of human dignity; by contrast, injustice denotes a systemic failure to provide

an ethical/social/political environment supportive of the conditions of dignity.

However, application of the ethical/social/political principles of human needs,

capabilities, human rights, and justice to determine the failure of a given society to create

conditions amenable to the realization of human dignity does not uncover the causes for

this failure; nor can human rights and justice suggest the appropriate focus and methods

of protestation and remedy for the enactment of compassionate intervention. The purpose

of the fourth phase of this global citizenship narrative is to address these remaining

concerns through the integration of the ethical/social/political dispositions of critical

consciousness and nonviolence, culminating in global citizenship practice.

To this end, it is first necessary to apply the analytic lens of critical consciousness

whereby one strives to identify the underlying systemic societal/institutional causes for

the existence and perpetuation of the indignity of human suffering. While this

investigative process may inevitably produce an incomplete or only partially accurate

understanding of the root causes of suffering, it is the ethical obligation of an active

global citizen to undergo this process; otherwise, compassionate intervention may merely

serve as a temporary balm for the symptoms of suffering, leaving the foundational causes

free to perpetuate indignity and injustice. If successful, critical consciousness can suggest

the appropriate systemic target to address through one’s subsequent global citizenship

practice.

However, identification of the root causes for injustice does not suggest any

ethical guidelines or constraints regarding the ethical mindset or strategies one might use

to combat injustice. The preceding dispositions in my global ethic suggest promotion and

utilization of the ethical/social/political disposition of nonviolence, whereby nonviolence

reflects three interconnected but distinct ethical lenses consistent with its three ethical and

practical functions. First, nonviolence suggests the importance of daily constructive

intrapersonal and interpersonal practices for the purpose of fostering a more empathic and

caring culture less inclined toward the use of violence. Secondly, I conceive of

nonviolence as affirming the interdependence and dignity of all life by providing an

ethical threshold for global citizenship practice that denies the legitimacy of the use of

intentional acts of violence, even to rectify injustice. Lastly, nonviolence represents a

creative and courageous method of confronting systemic injustice through

implementation of a type of global citizenship practice that strives to uphold the dignity

of all involved parties in the effort to obtain justice. Thus, the collective lenses and

functions of nonviolence, as outlined above, conclude the ethical “journey” of global

citizenship identity as articulated in my global ethic and return one anew to an awareness

of the subjectivity and preciousness of the face of the other, as well as of one’s primary

ethical relation with him.

Finally, one is ready to apply the ethical/social/political dispositions of my global

ethic narrative to engage in global citizenship practice to alleviate suffering and, if

possible, expose and remedy any institutional forces deemed to be the primary systemic

source(s) for this suffering. Ideally, this global citizenship practice will occur in direct

participation with a community of global citizenship practitioners, i.e., a global

citizenship community or community of conscience, within the context of what I will call

a global citizenship action-learning initiative. I proceed directly to a literature review of

the practice of global citizenship through this type of pedagogy in Chapter Three.

Chapter Three: Global Citizenship Action-Learning as a Reconception of Service-

Learning Pedagogy

The purpose of this chapter is to explicate the role of what I will call “global

citizenship action-learning” as an ideal pedagogical process for the cultivation of global

citizenship dispositions, identity, and practice in early adolescents, as attempted by my

students and me during the present study. The basic pedagogical structure of my

conception of global citizenship action-learning derives in large part from what is

commonly referred to as “service-learning.” That is, global citizenship action-learning

represents a revised form of what is generically referred to as “service-learning”

pedagogy. The necessity to reconceive and rebrand the traditional notion of

servicelearning as “global citizenship action-learning” is the central focus of this chapter.

To better understand the pedagogical orientation grounding my use of global

citizenship action-learning within this study, it is essential to explore those aspects of

traditional service-learning that I attempted to incorporate, as well as those from which I

diverged. To this end, I will organize this chapter into three major parts.

First, in order to provide the reader with a generic frame of reference, I will

briefly introduce the major components of the service-learning process. I will focus more

closely on three of the four major aspects of service-learning, i.e., preparation, action or

service, and reflection. (The fourth component, celebration or demonstration, while

important, is not included within the focus of this study, except to the extent that this

dissertation is introduced through my description of a major instance of celebration and

demonstration.) This closer examination will clarify the points of convergence and

differentiation between traditional service-learning and my conception of global

citizenship action-learning.

Secondly, I will provide a literature review in support of the developmental

readiness of pre-adolescents to engage effectively in the global citizenship actionlearning

process, as well as to encounter global problems as a primary source of curricular content

within this process.

Lastly, I will critique aspects of service-learning pedagogy and terminology,

leading to my final justification and insertion of revised terminology to be embedded

within my conception of global citizenship action-learning pedagogy as relevant to my

global citizenship practice with middle school youth.

Clarifications

Before proceeding with the above roadmap for this chapter, it is important to

clarify three key points. First, as Kaye (2004) asserts, each of the following

servicelearning components should be conceived of as “part of an interdependent whole

(p. 10).” As such, while the forthcoming explications of the service-learning components

are examined in isolation for the purpose of clarification, their linkages make this a

synergistic and cyclical pedagogical process supportive of global citizenship.

Consequently, any of the service-learning components listed above can be highlighted—

whether solely or in combination—at any point in the process.

Secondly, as Fertman et al. (1996) insist, youth service-learning practitioners

should participate in every aspect of the process. Only in this way, can the promotion of

youth voice, empowerment, and ownership regarding their selected initiative truly be

nurtured.

Third, and most pertinent to the reader’s understanding of this chapter, I need to

explain my respective use of the terms “service-learning” and “global citizenship

actionlearning” within the context of this chapter. Since global citizenship action-

learning represents my personal reconception of traditional service-learning, all scholarly

research cited in this chapter necessarily refers solely to service-learning as opposed to

my particular derivation. That is, any discussion or critique of service-learning obviously

requires referencing of this term as derived from the literature review. Further, I can only

distinguish my conception of global citizenship action-learning from service-learning

through direct reference to the latter term. Consequently, this chapter will necessarily

feature extensive use of the term service-learning. However, if successful, this chapter

will provide sufficient explanation and analysis to allow me to clearly justify to the reader

my use of global citizenship action-learning in lieu of service-learning by the end of this

chapter and throughout the remainder of this dissertation.

Major Components of Service-Learning

A synthesis of my readings suggests the following aspects of the service-learning

process for which there appear to be universal consensus: a pre-service preparation phase

(Fertman et al., 1996; Kaye, 2004; Terry & Bohnenberger, 2007) consisting of academic

or school-based learning leading to selection of a specific community problem, as well as

training and planning for the intended service or action to be conducted in collaboration

with community-based service organizations on behalf of a selected beneficiary

community; the actual action (Kaye, 2004; Terry & Bohnenberger, 2007) or service

(Fertman et al., 1996) conducted to address one’s selected community problem;

structured reflection (Fertman et al., 1996; Kaye, 2004; Terry & Bohnenberger, 2007)

between teacher and youth participants to process and make meaning of the

servicelearning experience; and a celebration (Fertman et al., 1996; Terry &

Bohnenberger, 2007) and/or demonstration phase (Kaye, 2004) aimed at providing a

public forum for acknowledging the participation and achievements of the service-

learning participants, as well as to offer evidence of student learnings and

accomplishments.

I will now proceed to examine the first three elements of the service-learning

process more closely. In this way, I will clarify those aspects of service-learning that are

consistent with my conception of global citizenship action-learning pedagogy, and those

areas in which I adopt a different position or emphasis.

Preparation (Component One) - Academic

As indicated above, one dimension of the preparation component of the

servicelearning process involves research and investigation aimed at identifying an

authentic community problem or need. I am in agreement with this general purpose of

this dimension of the preparation component. However, there are three dimensions of

central importance to me in this component of the service-learning process that appear to

be absent from traditional descriptions of the service-learning process: that is, the optimal

teacher-students epistemological relationship supportive of the nurturance of youth voice

and empowerment, “problem-posing” as an ideal methodology for identifying curricular

content pertinent to the academic stage of preparation, and the use of the theme of “global

problems” to focus the content of student research during this phase of the process. The

absence of discussion regarding the epistemological and pedagogical aspects of the

academic preparation phase of service-learning strikes me as a major gap in the

servicelearning process. Indeed, this differentiation between traditional service-learning

and my advocacy of global citizenship action-learning compels me to share my

arguments for the inclusion of these missing elements as seminal aspects of the academic

preparation dimension of the global citizenship action-learning process.

Epistemology for youth voice and empowerment. Regarding epistemology, I

refer to the area of knowledge acquisition: that is, on what basis and through what

process one can validly claim access to knowledge and assert a knowledge claim. In fact,

these two issues of criteria and process are deeply connected. Further, the methods and

standards used to evaluate and confirm knowledge claims will have a direct effect on the

nature and organization of the learning and practicing environment of one’s global

citizenship community with respect to factors such as the teacher-students relationship

and the particular ways encouraged and sanctioned for identifying and claiming access to

knowledge. Consequently, it is of critical importance to provide a conceptual framework

supportive of the type of epistemological and pedagogical inquiry and interaction that

should occur within one’s community. To this end, I advocate for the integration of

Freire’s notion of “dialogical praxis” with Bruner’s conception of “intersubjective

exchange” as comprising an ideal epistemological model for empowering youth global

citizenship practitioners within one’s community.

Freire’s concept of praxis is a direct response to its antithesis: what he refers to as

the “banking” model of education (Freire, 1970/1997, p. 53). Freire describes the latter’s

dehumanizing pedagogical process as consisting of two parties: the teacher, who plays

the part of the “narrating Subject,” and the students, who act as “patient, listening

objects” (p. 52). Within this form of teacher-student relationship, “(T)he teacher talks

about reality as if it were motionless, static, compartmentalized, and predictable” while

“expound(ing) on a topic completely alien to the existential experience of the students” in

order to “‘fill’ the students with the contents of his narration” (Freire, 1970/1997, p. 52).

This treatment of knowledge as objective, universal, unchangeable and beyond dispute

suffocates the potential for student participation in the identification, evaluation, and

development of knowledge acquisition. This stultifying pedagogical process turns the

students into figurative “containers” or “receptacles” into which unquestioned

“knowledge” is deposited by the teacher, with the “scope of action allowed to the students

extend(ing) only as far as receiving, filing, and storing the deposits”: hence, Freire’s

“banking” metaphor cited above (Freire, 1970/1997, p. 53).

The end result of this form of pedagogy is a deadening of the potential of the

students to recognize their own capacity to engage in, and assume a level of ownership

for, epistemological discourse. Lacking such active participation in the discovery,

generation, and evaluation of knowledge, students fail to develop the disposition toward

critique or critical consciousness—cited in Chapter Two as one of my dispositions of

global citizenship—necessary for constructive transformation of self, others, and society

(Freire, 1970/1997, p. 54). Indeed, for Freire (1970/ 1997), the humanity of the student

herself is “filed away through lack of creativity, transformation, and knowledge in this (at

best) misguided system” (p. 53).

To combat this pedagogy of passivity and subjugation, Freire (1970/1997)

proposes the pedagogy of dialogical “praxis”—that is, “reflection and action upon the

world in order to transform it”—as an activist dialogical practice aimed at liberating the

oppressed from their identification with subjugation and, hence, of their complicity in

their own experience of injustice (p. 33). He defines ideal dialogue as “the encounter in

which the united reflection and action of the dialoguers are addressed to the world which

is to be transformed and humanized” (Freire, 1970/1997, p. 69-70). For Freire, dialogue

without the commitment to transformation leads to empty words, while “action for

action’s sake . . . makes dialogue impossible” (p. 69-70). Thus, it is solely through

dialogical praxis that the faces and voices of both the suffering others and those who

participate in supporting the systematic structures that reinforce this suffering—whether

directly or indirectly—can heal the distortions to their joint humanity caused by such

oppression and begin to reclaim their “vocation to be more fully human” (Freire,

1970/1997, p. 55).

To facilitate the type of pedagogical praxis outlined above first requires a

redefining of the teacher-students relationship in a manner that empowers students as

coparticipants in the epistemological process. That is, “[E]ducation must begin with the

solution of the teacher-student contradiction, by reconciling the poles of the contradiction

so that both are simultaneously teachers and students” (Freire, 1970/1997, p. 53). Within

this new pedagogical relationship, “[T]he teacher is no longer merely the-one-

whoteaches, but one who is himself taught in dialogue with the students, who in turn

while being taught also teach” (Freire, 1970/1997, p. 61). Such “co-intentional

education” elevates both teacher and students to the status of “Subjects . . . in the task of

unveiling . . . reality, and thereby coming to know it critically” (Freire, 1970/1997, p. 51).

Thus, for Freire, authentic knowledge—and the transformative power that it engenders

—“emerges only through invention and re-invention, through the restless, impatient,

continuing, hopeful inquiry human beings pursue in the world, with the world, and with

each other”

(Freire, 1970/1997, p. 53).

Freire’s appeal for an equitable (or at least more equitable) teacher-students

relationship requires two fundamental conditions: a conception of the participants as

capable of authentic and serious participation in both reflection and action within a

community of “praxis,” as well as a conception of knowledge as contested, i.e., subject to

evaluation, reevaluation, and revision by every member of the community. Bruner’s

notion of “intersubjective exchange” supports these prerequisites for participation in

Freirean dialogical praxis by empowering each participant in a community of inquiry

with the capacity for participation as an “epistemologist as well as a learner” (Bruner,

1996, p. 57). That is, the student brings an engaged and active mind to his encounter with

and evaluation of knowledge. In stark contrast to the “banking” or transmission model of

pedagogy critiqued above by Freire—or what Bruner refers to as the “didactic” model of

teaching—such intersubjective exchange posits a contested terrain for healthy, vigorous,

and reasoned dialogue and interaction between meaning-making participants. It follows

that each participant in such a learning community is capable of changing her mind,

depending upon the nature of the evidence or reasoning presented by another participant

in this intersubjective encounter. This, in turn, demonstrates the capacity of each

participant for metacognition or thinking about one’s own cognitive processing (Bruner,

1996).

This epistemological approach necessarily replaces a notion of knowledge as

static with a notion of knowledge as that which is derived through “discourse,

collaboration, and negotiation” (Bruner, 1996, p. 57). That is, truth-claims “are the

product of evidence, argument, and construction rather than of authority” (ibid). The

notion of intersubjective exchange based on vigorous debate and dialogue among

competent participants—including both teacher and students—and focused on the

discovery and presentation of persuasive evidence and ideas is clearly a necessary feature

of the praxis of any global citizenship community.

This conception of dialogue and knowledge acquisition provides a learning

environment that promotes youth voice and empowerment as well as the authentic

acquisition of the dispositions of global citizenship. Such dialogical praxis requires the

positing of persons—regardless of age—capable of creating knowledge and meaning in

collaboration with others. This, in turn, suggests the potential for participants in a global

citizenship community to derive—through social critique—deeper understanding of the

conditions, needs, and sufferings of others, and of creative ways of acting upon the world

to heal and transform themselves and others.

By contrast, a pedagogy of the status quo, wherein knowledge and meaning are

fixed and reinforced by dominant societal institutions, seeks to cloud the ability of

students to recognize the primacy of their relation with the other. That is, a pedagogy of

determinism denies access to the dispositions of global citizenship and nullifies youth

voice and empowerment by suppressing the necessary conditions for creating a just and

democratic community. Conversely, the pedagogical practices based on dialogue, action,

and intersubjectivity espoused by Freire and Bruner promote a relational disposition of

responsiveness to the other, according to her unique particularity and potentiality as a face

in our midst.

“Problem-posing” pedagogy supportive of youth voice and empowerment.

The epistemological approach described above, which reframes the teacher-students

relationship as epistemological subjects and “co-investigators,” is actually the requisite

first step in a pedagogical methodology proposed by Freire (1970/1997) called

“problemposing” (p. 61). Within this methodology, the teacher and students work jointly

to establish their dialogical content through identification of what Freire calls “generative

themes” which comprise “ideas, values, concepts, and hopes, as well as the obstacles

which impede the people’s full humanization” (p. 82). The “task of the dialogical

teacher” is to “‘re-present’ that generative universe to the people from whom she or he

first received it . . . not as a lecture, but as a problem” (Freire, 1970/1997, p. 90). That is,

the problems selected by the teacher and students should be those that connect “to

themselves in the world and with the world” and, as such, should inspire all participants

to “feel increasingly challenged and obliged to respond to that challenge” (Freire,

1970/1997, p. 62). Further, the requisite response to this challenge must occur, for Freire

(1970/1997), “not just at the intellectual level, but at the level of action” (p. 76-7). In this

way, selection of one’s thematic “universe” should, in turn, precipitate a praxis aimed at

investigating the theme through dialogue and action (Freire, 1970/1997).

In summary, for Freire, the critical lens through which participants approach

epistemology must be accompanied by an active response to this unveiling of reality in

regards to a mutually selected theme and problem; only this synergy of dialogue and

action represents a pedagogical praxis capable of transformative power. This

methodology is clearly supportive of the ethical/social/political dispositions espoused in

my global ethic.

Global problems as the ideal theme for producing curricular content. In his

discussion of his problem-posing methodology, Freire (1970/1997) asserts that the

content of one’s critical analysis cannot be determined before the encounter of

teacherfacilitator and students. Rather, curriculum is a natural outgrowth of the concrete

situation of the pedagogical community and of the desire of its participants to undergo

empowering transformation as a means of redefining and acting upon their own reality.

With this linkage in mind, I introduce global problems as an ideal theme for use in

developing curricular content for a pedagogy for global citizenship for several reasons.

First, the theme of global problems and the particular problems that can be identified

under this rubric require utilization of many of the ethical/social/political dispositions of

global citizenship for their effective examination. Second, global problems provide a

menu of topics, questions, and curricular content sufficient to satisfy the particular

concrete situation and interests of any global citizenship community. Third, once selected

by one’s global citizenship community, any particular global problem provides a

significant range of thematic content for development of a classroom curriculum pertinent

to global citizenship. Fourth, by its very nature, a global problem demands the active

intervention of global citizenship practice to address unjust suffering. Indeed, the theme

of global problems connects directly with my own current efforts, examined below in

Chapter Five, to nurture global citizenship practice among middle school youth through

our joint investigation of the global problem of access to quality primary and secondary

school education and our effort to sponsor construction of a school in Ethiopia. Thus, a

topic derived from the theme of global problems is ideal for the development of the

global citizenship dispositions, youth voice, and empowerment necessary for active

global citizenship.

I will now use the remainder of this section to consider: the components of a

global problem, the types of global problems that a global citizenship community may

select for examination, the importance of understanding the impact of a global problem

through investigation of the experiences of specific individuals affected by the problem,

and the opportunity a focus on global problems provides to identify exemplars of global

citizenship.

Components of a global problem. Before proceeding to identify a particular

global problem as one’s curricular theme, it is necessary to determine what elements must

be present to constitute a global problem. This is a challenge that can and should occupy

a global citizenship community, since one’s conception of a global problem will frame

which problems may be considered as “global” in nature and therefore valid for thematic

consideration.

There are several contestable areas of consideration necessary for evaluating

whether or not a problem should be deemed global, including its causes, the nature and

magnitude of its impact, and its geographic reach. For Dower (2003), a global problem is

“caused by people (or events and processes) from all parts of the world, . . . requires the

coordinated efforts of many actors from all parts of the world, particularly governments

of countries, to solve” and “is a problem for significant numbers of people throughout the

world” (p. 19-20). In terms of responding to a global problem, Dower (2003) asserts that

there should be “widespread consensus amongst state actors and individuals . . . that from

a global point of view something out to be done about this evil . . . by actors outside the

country or countries within which the evil exits” (p. 20). Such a global consensus

regarding the ethical/social/political necessity to offer compassionate intervention to

distant, non-intimate, suffering others suggests, in turn, the presence of a “global ethic

being appealed to, implicitly or explicitly” (Dower, 2003, p. 20).

Hendrix (1998) cites a set of criteria for determining a global problem suggested

by Kniep (1986) which, while supporting Dower’s position that a global problem must

transcend multiple national borders and be addressed by nations or actors from outside

the affected nations, offers three important additions: that the problem has developed

over the course of years, is likely to continue in the foreseeable future, and is linked to

other such global problems (p. 307). Kniep’s addendums are crucial for two reasons.

First, they clarify the entrenched and longstanding foundation of such a problem, which

makes its short-term resolution impossible. Secondly, they reveal the interconnectedness

of global problems such that one such problem is likely to exacerbate and be caused by

one or more others. In fact, it is precisely this symbiotic relationship between global

problems—as, for example, between child labor and access to quality education—that

leads to the development of a Freirean “thematic universe” of topics related to the single

global problem selected by a global citizenship community as its overarching theme.

Types of global problems. There is a wide range of problems that merit

designation as global problems according to the criteria cited above. I will briefly offer

several examples in this section to demonstrate how identification of a global problem

can suggest numerous topics for a pedagogy for global citizenship.

One such example is the global problem of war and conflict. For Noddings

(2005), the global problem of armed conflict and resolution suggests several areas for

curricular investigation, including an examination of “movements for peace and

nonviolence” (Noddings, 2005, p. 18), as well as “a full discussion of the personal risks,

horrors, and losses of war” on the secondary school level (p. 20). In addition, she insists

that “material on the oppression of women, racial minorities, homosexuals, and the

various religious sects” are essential “in any adequate curriculum for peace education”

(Noddings, 2005, p. 19).

Concern for sustainable development provides another powerful, thematic global

problem from which curricular content pertinent to global citizenship can easily be

produced. Indeed, Bourn (2005) insists that one “cannot divorce global citizenship from

ESD,” i.e., education for sustainable development (p. 236). Rather, for Bourn,

“(s)ustainable development is about the interrelationship of environment, economy, and

society, . . . including the agendas of citizenship, and social inclusion, combating poverty

at local, national, and at global levels, and addressing general public concerns about the

quality of life” (p. 236). This linkage of the global problem of sustainable development

to a “thematic universe” spanning a wide range of topics is supported by “The Earth

Charter Initiative,” whose “Values and Principles to Foster a Sustainable Future” include:

“Respect and Care for the Community of Life; Ecological Integrity; Social and Economic

Justice; and Democracy, Nonviolence, and Peace” ("The earth charter," 2012). Clearly, as

with the theme of war and peace, a holistic approach to the global problem of sustainable

development promotes a full range of curricular topics for a pedagogy for global

citizenship.

Lastly, I introduce briefly the global problem of access to quality primary and

secondary school education. This theme is of special importance to me both as an

educator committed to the ethical, social, and political imperative of supplying free or

affordable global access to education and as the facilitator of a middle school global

citizenship community whose commitment to sponsoring construction of a school in

Ethiopia will be the focus of the latter portion of this dissertation. By brainstorming and

researching the problem of inequity in global education, one discovers a plethora of

connected global problems such as poverty, child labor, gender inequity, child marriage,

and access to clean water which have a direct impact on the perpetuation of this problem.

Again, like the themes introduced above, the global problem of access to quality

schooling for youth provides a wealth of content for a pedagogy for global citizenship.

Profiling the experience of specific individuals as embodying a global problem.

While the breadth of the global problems cited above may provide a prospective global

citizenship community with a plethora of themes and topics to select and examine, the

magnitude of these problems may overwhelm one’s ethical imagination and capacity to

empathize with the suffering other. Such empathy requires a more “human” scale—a

face and a voice—in which the impact of a particular global problem on a singular life

can be imagined, understood, and extrapolated as representative of the similar

experiences of the many faceless and voiceless others suffering from one’s selected

problem. Indeed, Rifkin (2009) cites studies that indicate the propensity of people to

empathize with the problems of identifiable individuals greatly increase the likelihood of

supporting efforts to alleviate the generic global problem producing this suffering (p.

428). As a teacher I can vouch for the apparent truth of this claim. Consequently, I

require my student researchers to identify and share profiles of individuals suffering from

their selected global problems—within different geographic, social, economic, and

political contexts, if possible—as a means of humanizing the problem under

investigation: that is, making it accessible to our capacity for empathic extension to

distant, non-intimate, suffering others.

Exemplars of global citizenship practice. An exploration of individuals and

organizations that have attempted to address global problems through effective global

citizenship practice is a logical outgrowth of the preceding investigation into global

problems. Indeed, the introduction of such exemplars of global citizenship practice is a

strongly supported strategy for global citizenship education (Fertman et al., 1996;

Hoffman, 2000; Miller, 2005; Ruiz & Vallejos, 1999).

There are several desired outcomes that exposure to exemplars may encourage,

including: the integration of personal qualities and/or ideals embodied by role models

into one’s own ethical framework (Fertman et al., 1996, p. 15), promotion of “prosocial

behavior” (Hoffman, 2000, p. 288), broadening awareness of the range of global

problems that need addressing, and recognition of the wide range of motivations and

methods employed by exemplars to practice global citizenship in addressing these

problems. Further, Hoffman (2000) believes that the open expression of empathy on

behalf of suffering others exhibited by such exemplars, as well as a clear articulation of

the causes of their suffering, “should contribute to children’s responding empathically

rather than making counterempathic attributions such as blaming the victim” (p. 288-89).

As a middle school teacher involved with global citizenship pedagogy and global

citizenship action-learning initiatives for a dozen years, I can attest to the powerful

impact exposure to global citizenship exemplars can have on middle school youth.

Indeed, each of my action-learning initiatives was, to an important degree, initiated and

buttressed by the opportunity for my students to meet a global citizenship exemplar

within the global problem under investigation.

I offer only one qualification concerning the potential impact of introducing early

adolescents to outstanding practitioners of global citizenship: exposure to role models of

global citizenship is not likely to produce a significant impact on a wide percentage of

students unless this experience is embedded within the larger context of a pedagogy for

global citizenship, most notably within an action-learning initiative. That qualification

aside, I make sure to provide time for the students in my global citizenship classes to

research and identify a wide range of exemplars of active global citizenship. Further, I

make every effort to invite such exemplars to meet my students and deliver presentations

regarding their global citizenship practice.

Preparation (Component One) - Preparation for Global Citizenship Action

Preparation for service or action (or what I will call “global citizenship action”)

involves any preparatory efforts—research, dialogue, reflection, decision-making,

planning, and organizing—necessary for the implementation of action on behalf of an

identified group of suffering others. I posit the phrase “global citizenship action” over

“action” or “service” to clarify the nature of such action as expressive of one’s

dispositions of global citizenship; in addition, the term “service” has connotations of

nonmutuality that I will elaborate upon more fully below in my critique of service-

learning. I will now briefly outline the types of global citizenship action one may

undertake.

Based on my experiences in facilitating global citizenship action-learning

initiatives, preparation for global citizenship action involves the following: selection of a

specific global problem to address; selection of a specific population or community

affected by this global problem; research regarding one’s selected global problem and the

affected population in preparation for the creation of an educational presentation

regarding this problem and its affected population; establishment of action objectives

(education of the public, fundraising, volunteering, etc.) and an action plan to achieve

them; identification of an individual or organizational partner, if necessary, capable of

implementing or providing direct service to one’s selected population; planning necessary

for establishing ongoing connections and communication with one’s selected population

and organizational partner; and planning and organization necessary for hosting

schoolbased and/or public events aimed at educating others about one’s selected global

problem and affected population and garnering support (donations, volunteering, etc.) for

the attainment of one’s action-learning objectives.

While each of the activities listed above are essential to successfully prepare for

global citizenship action, the first two items—selection of a global problem and of a

beneficiary population or community—are foundational. That is, until one’s global

citizenship community has made decisions about these items, no further preparation is

possible. Given the importance of these decisions, I will briefly share some guidelines

offered in the research literature for making these determinations.

Regarding the type of global problem that should be selected, there is consensus

that the selection should address a real or unmet community need or problem (BoyleBaise

& Sleeter, 2000, cited in Cipolle, 2004, p. 21; Fertman et al., 1996; Kaye, 2004; Pritchard

& George Whitehead, III, 2004; Taylor & Ballengee-Morris, 2004, p. 6). In addition,

prospective service-recipients must play a significant role in identifying the need or

problem to be addressed (Kaye, 2004; Taylor & Ballengee-Morris, 2004), while

participating youth service-providers must also be involved in the decision-making

process (Pritchard & George Whitehead, III, 2004) as a means of promoting student

“ownership” (Fertman et al., 1996, p. 30).

Wade (2001), Boyle-Baise and Binford (2005) and Fertman et al. (1996) support

the notion that the selection of one’s service recipient population should be oriented

toward identifying economic, racial, ethnic, or social groups that tend to be hidden from

popular attention and, consequently, burdened by this condition of relative societal

invisibility. Additionally, Boyle-Baise and Binford and Fertman et al. assert that

connecting youth service-providers with such populations promotes multicultural

awareness and understanding.

Ultimately, then, a prospective global citizenship community should seek

partnerships with members of a marginalized and/or oppressed economic, racial, ethnic,

or social group, with the aim of engaging in material, educational, cultural and/or social

exchange for the purpose of addressing a selected global problem adversely impacting the

dignity of the affected individuals.

Preparation (Component Two) – Global Citizenship Action

In the second major stage of the service-learning model the action or service for

which one’s global citizenship community has been preparing is performed or

implemented, thereby giving expression to the students’ burgeoning ethical, social, and

political dispositions, skills, and capacities. I will now briefly outline the types of global

citizenship action one may undertake.

According to the research literature, there are four categories of action or service

in service-learning pedagogy: direct service (Fertman et al., 1996; Kaye, 2004; Pritchard

& Whitehead, III, 2004; Terry & Bohnenberger, 2007; Wade, 1997), indirect service

(Fertman et al., 1996; Kaye, 2004; Pritchard & Whitehead, III, 2004; Terry &

Bohnenberger, 2007; Wade, 1997), advocacy (Kaye, 2004; Pritchard & Whitehead, III,

2004; Wade, 1997) or civic action (Fertman et al., 1996, p. 31), and research (Kaye,

2004; Wade, 1997). (I would substitute the phrases “direct action” and “indirect action”

for the phrases “direct service” and “indirect service” for the reasons stated above.)

Specifically, direct service involves engaging in interpersonal contact with the service

beneficiaries, while indirect service, such as fundraising, channels resources to address a

selected problem or to promote the direct service offered by an organization seeking to

implement the sponsored service (Fertman et al., 1996, p. 30-31). The terms “advocacy”

and “civic action” both refer to the effort to elevate public awareness about a selected

problem, and encourage public support and action that one believes can alleviate or

resolve the problem. Lastly, research refers to the act of gathering data for the purposes of

providing an informational report on a selected problem (Kaye, 2004, p. 9). Thus,

research focuses on information-gathering and sharing, while advocacy or civic action is

concerned with raising awareness and influencing others to constructive action aimed at

addressing one’s selected problem.

In addition to the four types of action cited above, I would add “connection with

one’s action-learning beneficiaries and implementing organizational partners” as an

indispensable form of global citizenship action. Indeed, the importance of this latter form

of action—along with my students’ efforts to research and share information about our

selected global problem, advocate for school and community support on behalf of our

action-learning beneficiaries, and provide indirect service through fundraising—will be

profiled in Chapter Five through my description and analysis of the global citizenship

action-learning initiative I engaged in with my middle school students during this study.

Preparation (Component Three) – Reflection

Structured reflection is the third critical component of the service-learning

pedagogy. There is universal consensus regarding the need to integrate regular

opportunities for members of a service-learning community to engage in structured

reflection (Cipolle, 2004; Fertman et al, 1996; Kaye, 2004; Pritchard & Whitehead, III,

2004), while Fertman et al. (1996) and Kaye (2004) emphasize the need for structured

reflection throughout the service-learning process.

Fertman et al. (1996) posit several key elements as necessary for facilitating

“quality reflections” (p. 35). Specifically, reflection should contain a “clear objective,”

the reflection method should be “consistent with the desired learning outcome,” and all

participating students should be “involved in reflection and in linking the experience to

their lives,” as well as “helped in assessing what they have learned, and judging their own

progress” (Fertman et al., 1996, p. 35). For Cipolle (2004), the most significant objective

of structured reflection is the nurturance of critical reflection and analysis that can

promote critical consciousness.

Terry and Bohnenberger (2007) offer a number of written, oral, and

projectoriented types of structured reflection, including the composition of ongoing

journal reflections and engaging in discussion and debate. Fertman et al. (1996) also

propose a wide variety of reflection modalities within the categories of speaking, writing,

activities, and multimedia.

Structured reflection can impact youth service-learning participants in a number of

important ways. According to Fertman et al. (1996), reflection can promote cognitive

development by facilitating student understanding and meaning-making and by

connecting learnings to action. For Kaye (2004), reflecting upon such linkages promotes

“personal growth and awareness,” while nurturing the ability of youth participants to “put

cognitive, social, and emotional aspects of experience into the larger context of self, the

community, and the world” (p. 11). Further, for Kaye (2004), effective reflection

promotes the application of newfound “experience, knowledge, and skills” derived

through a retrospective review of past actions to influence one’s “future actions” and to

guide the direction of subsequent reflective inquiry (p. 11). Ultimately, for Kaye (2004),

this proactive use of reflection can facilitate transformative change in service-learning

participants. Given the potential enormity of its impact, reflection must be conceived of

as “at the core of service learning, creating meaning out of the service experience”

(Saltmarsh, 1997, p. 88).

It is also essential to note that ongoing reflection needs to be conducted at the

level of the individual and of the community. That is, there should be ongoing

intrapersonal reflection and interpersonal dialogue and reflection regarding the learnings,

questions, concerns, growth, and global citizenship dispositions of each participating

member of a service-learning initiative, as well as with respect to the group as a whole.

Such reflection is best nurtured in an environment of trusting relationships and

constructive dialogue (Saltmarsh, 1997). That is, meaningful and transformative public

reflection requires a global citizenship community that nurtures trust, openness, and

honesty through a positive learning and working environment supportive of constructive

interpersonal connections.

Ultimately, such an environment promotes a kind of receptivity towards the

opinions and feelings of each community member that can presumably be transferred to

relations with one’s service-recipients (Saltmarsh, 1997). Indeed, this last assertion by

Saltmarsh foreshadows one of the seminal insights derived from this study: the ethical

obligation to nurture an environment for equitable and open discourse not only between

my students and me, but between our global citizenship community and our

actionlearning community partners.

Compatibility of Global Citizenship Action-Learning Pedagogy to the

Developmental Readiness of Early Adolescents

Any teacher attempting to promote the growth of global citizenship dispositions,

identity, and practice among early adolescents should be able to justify the use of her

pedagogy with respect to the developmental levels, potentialities, and needs of early

adolescents—encompassing an age range from about ten to fourteen (Terry &

Bohnenberger, 2007, p. 8; Stevenson, 1998, p. 9)—with regard to sociality, affect,

cognition, ethical orientation, and political/community activism. Indeed, Carlsson-Paige

& Lantieri (2005) consider such knowledge a “critical competency for global educators”

(in Noddings, 2005, p. 114), while Cohen (2006) posits the development of children’s

“social-emotional competencies and ethical dispositions” as one of the main requirements

of responsible schools and educators (p. 202).

Specifically, I will explore the developmental readiness of middle school youth to

engage in the study of global problems and service-learning pedagogy. In addition, I will

examine the compatibility of middle school structure and philosophy to the

implementation of service-learning pedagogy.

Early Adolescent Readiness to Encounter Global Problems

Given my focus on early adolescent youth, it is necessary to assess their cognitive,

affective, and ethical readiness to encounter maturely global problems such as those listed

above. In fact, early adolescence is a developmental stage marked by a burgeoning

capacity to understand and address problems and issues affecting the wider society. The

increasing capacity of adolescents to engage in sophisticated cognitive and ethical

processing enables them to understand the complexity involved with global problems

(Myers, 2008; Stevenson, 1998). Indeed, for Myers (2008), “(i)t is educationally

valuable for adolescents to learn about the complexity of social issues and to have the

opportunity to synthesize the available information to construct personal explanations”

(p. 118). Further, according to Myers (2008), this necessity to synthesize an array of

disparate and sometimes divergent information and viewpoints to make meaning of a

particular social/ethical/political issue or problem disabuses students of the more

simplistic explanations of such problems often offered in textbooks.

Davies (2006) cites a 1998 survey of over 4,000 middle and high school students

in England and Wales that suggests that, in addition to their cognitive ability to engage

with global problems, most adolescents feel a sufficient level of affective preparedness to

learn about such topics. When questioned about a variety of global problems such as war,

human rights abuses, environmental destruction, and the economic problems of

developing nations, only 12% registered no desire to learn more about such problems

(Peaty, 2001, p. 16, in Davies, 2006).

Davies (2006) cites Peaty’s evidence as revealing a “clear message” regarding the

preparedness of children to confront global problems (p. 20). This is a conclusion that

my personal experience with middle school youth strongly confirms.

It is important to acknowledge that gains in cognitive, affective, and ethical

development among adolescents do not ensure acceptance of the kind of global ethic

espoused in this dissertation; nor do they guarantee a commensurate desire to accept the

social, ethical, and political responsibility of global citizenship practice. As Myers (2008)

states: “(r)esearch . . . shows that not all students are ready to take on moral responsibility

and solidarity at a global scale, which are key elements of global citizenship” (p. 119).

This, too, is a conclusion whose validity I can confirm through experience.

This qualification regarding the preparedness of early adolescents for embracing

active concern for distant, non-intimate, suffering others hardly invalidates the need for a

pedagogy for global citizenship. Rather, it reinforces our obligation as educators to create

learning environments conducive to the practice of global citizenship in a variety of

venues that can accommodate the wide range of cognitive, affective, and ethical

developmental levels one expects to encounter among early adolescents. That is, a

pedagogy for global citizenship should offer opportunities to practice global citizenship

within the more familiar confines of one’s school and local community, while

concurrently encouraging and developing experiential pathways for empathic extension

to distant, non-intimate others. As Berman (1997) asserts, “If citizenship is a goal of

education, then the practice of citizenship beyond the limited arena of the classroom and

school must be a basic element in that education as well” (p. 152).

Early Adolescent Readiness to Engage in Service-Learning Pedagogy

While detailed studies of middle level service-learning initiatives are lacking in

the research literature, a number of researchers make positive claims regarding the

compatibility and benefits of middle school service-learning pedagogy in fostering the

emotional, social, cognitive, and ethical development of youth (Fertman et al., 1996;

Hope, 1999; Schukar, 1997; Stott & Jackson, 2005). For example, Fertman et al. (1996)

claim that “middle school students developmentally are highly receptive to and motivated

by service learning” (p. 46), while Terry and Bohnenberger (2004) cite Schine in positing

service-learning pedagogy as “uniquely responsive to the traits of young adolescents: the

need to test oneself, to experience adult roles, to experiment with new relationships, to be

trusted and to cross the bridge from school and family into the community—the world

beyond” (p. 27).

Indeed, service-learning appears to nurture at least four particular aspects of early

adolescent development: the desire to make a real-world impact on global problems;

idealism regarding the importance of addressing such problems and of having a positive

impact regarding them; opportunities to display competence, independence, and

leadership regarding increasingly serious responsibilities; and forums for exercising

youth voice, choice, and empowerment. Terry and Bohnenberger (2007) proclaim that

service-learning pedagogy satisfies the desire of adolescents to have a tangible impact in

the larger community context by “plac(ing) them in a context in which the learning is

real, having consequences for both themselves and others” (p. 9). This need to apply

social, cognitive, ethical, and/or political knowledge and skills in actual community

contexts also nurtures adolescents’ idealism and belief in their capacity to constructively

and meaningfully address selected “real world” global problems (Terry & Bohnenberger,

2007, p. 9). In addition, Fertman et al. (1996) claim that service-learning supports the

need of adolescents for independence by providing opportunities for leadership roles “as

they identify, coordinate, and complete projects that have real significance” (p. 14).

A final aspect of early adolescent development promoted by service-learning

involves providing youth with opportunities for voice and choice: that is, meaningful

outlets for expression of youth opinions and participation in decision-making. The

empowerment that accompanies these opportunities provides a major source of

motivation for youth involvement and ownership in service-learning (Terry &

Bohnenberger, 2007, p. 63). Terry and Bohnenberger (2007) suggest several concrete

methods for incorporating student choice and/or decision-making. These include:

facilitating student selection of the theme, global problem, or focus of one’s

servicelearning initiative; allowing students to conduct research based on their own

interests and to select their own working groups (if needed); encouraging students to

develop their own presentations; and garnering student input regarding the format in

which they share their reflections (Terry & Bohnenberger, 2007, p. 92).

Service-Learning as Compatible with Middle School Philosophy and Organizational

Structure

In addition to its compatibility with early adolescent development, implementation

of service-learning pedagogy is well-suited to typical middle school philosophy and

organization. Fertman et al. (1996) encapsulate the connection between service-learning

pedagogy and middle school philosophy:

Middle Schools provide a particularly favorable environment in which to

create a culture of service that truly links service and learning. Such a culture

evolves from the middle school philosophy that promotes teachers and

students working together to meet the educational and developmental needs

of students (p. 1).

With respect to middle school organizational compatibility, Fertman et al. (1996),

Hope (1999) and Schukar (1997) contend that the organizational structure of middle

school settings—teaming, flexible scheduling, and interdisciplinary teaching—is

particularly conducive to promoting service learning initiatives. This organizational

compatibility and flexibility support a range of learning contexts for the practice of

service-learning, including: as a specific class devoted to service-learning (Fertman et al.,

1996, p. 43; Hope, 1999); as embedded within a specific subject (Hope, 1999); as an

outgrowth of an existing curriculum, disciplinary theme, or school-wide theme (Fertman

et. al., 1996, p. 43); as an extracurricular activity connected to a service club (Fertman et

al., 1996, p. 43; Hope, 1999); or as a special event (Fertman et. al., 1996, p. 43). In fact,

my ongoing global citizenship action-learning pedagogy is embedded in both the formal

classroom structure of my grade six global citizenship classes and in my extracurricular

Global Care Club in which self-selected middle school students invest more deeply in

both the academic and service aspects of the pedagogy.

Critique of Service-Learning Pedagogy and Suggestions for Alternative Conceptual

Framework and Terminology

Having established in the preceding sections the pedagogical value of

servicelearning pedagogy in fostering global citizenship dispositions and practice among

preadolescent and adolescent youth, I am in a position to engage in a critique of this

pedagogy in regards to the conceptual lenses and terminology undergirding the

designations for the providers and recipients of service, as well as the impact of this

terminology on one’s conception of the relationship between them. This critique will

position me to offer and/or solidify alternative vocabulary pertinent to my notion of

global citizenship action-learning and my conception of global citizenship that honors the

necessity to conceive of one’s relation with the suffering other as rooted in reciprocity,

mutuality, and partnership.

Essentially, the conceptual framing for service-learning pedagogy involves

choosing between an orientation toward the suffering other as a paternalistic and

charitable practice of members of the socially and materially advantaged “giving back to

the community” or as a frame that seeks to empower and transform all its participants,

especially school-based and community-based action-learners (Cipolle, 2004, p. 18). In

her analysis of service-learning conceptual frames, Cipolle cites a number of problematic

characteristics indicative of the paternalistic orientation mentioned above, including: a

perspective of charity instead of transformation, exploitation of the suffering other,

shortterm commitment, absence of critical pedagogy and critical reflection, lack of

understanding of diversity, lack of sufficient learning and/or service preparation, and

teacher domination vis-à-vis her students (p. 18). These characteristics result in projects

that focus exclusively on direct service, but fail to activate the potential for

servicelearning pedagogy to foster lasting change (Cipolle, 2004, p. 18).

The failure to employ critical consciousness in examining the institutional and

systemic sources of suffering leaves the socio-economic positions of those providing the

service unchallenged, thereby reducing the possibility that the service provider will either

question her role within the wider institutional dynamics that cause the suffering being

addressed or risk undergoing any significant personal transformation as a result of her

involvement in service-learning pedagogy. This absence of critique provides

opportunities for members of the dominant culture to engage in and perpetuate what

Freire refers to as “false generosity” (Freire, 1970/1997, p. 26): that is, the offering of

kindness to suffering individuals while failing to critique or address the institutional

sources of suffering writ large, thereby potentially “reinforce(ing) preconceived

stereotypes” regarding the recipients of one’s generosity (Boyle-Baise, 1998, cited in

Cipolle, 2004, p. 18). This paternalistic orientation toward the suffering other forestalls

or deemphasizes the development of equitable relations with the service recipients based

on some form of reciprocity and mutuality, leading service providers to ignore the voices

and capabilities of community-based action-learners (Weah et al, cited in Cipolle, 2004,

p. 19).

The resolution of these deficiencies in service-learning pedagogy and practice

requires heightened focus on the conceptual lenses of connection, critical consciousness,

and social justice. While the preparation component of service-learning needs to engage

students in critical analysis of the underlying causes of the global problem under

investigation as a means of identifying and, if possible, addressing the institutional

inequity that perpetuates social injustice, the action component of service-learning should

apply this critical analysis as a means of developing a greater understanding of, and

connection with, the particular suffering others with whom one is involved. That is, the

lenses of connection, critical consciousness, and justice aim to foster a relationship of

reciprocity, mutuality, and partnership between service providers and recipients such that

the dignity of the suffering others is acknowledged and supported, and the voice and

needs of the recipients have a central role in determining both what problems are to be

addressed and the manner in which this should occur. Only this type of conceptual

orientation for service-learning pedagogy can effectively combat charges of paternalism,

charity, and non-reciprocity between service providers and recipients.

Indeed, support can be found for the need to establish such an equitable

servicelearning relationship (Beilke, 2005; Cipolle, 2004; Kaye, 2004; Rhoads, 2000;

Saltmarsh, 1997; Sheffield, 2005; Terry & Bohnenberger, 2007). Further, while

terminology descriptive of such equitable relations alternates between “reciprocity”

(Kaye, 2004;

Terry & Bohnenberger, 2007), “mutuality” (Rhoads, 2000), and “partnership” (Beilke,

2005), the overall thrust of each of these terms is to highlight the capacity of both service

providers and recipients to participate in service-learning as “learners and recipients of

the service experience” (Terry & Bohnenberger, 2007, p. 59). Specifically, each

participant should be empowered to share and exchange “information, ideas, and skills”

(Kaye, 2004, p. 12), as well as to express their priorities and concerns regarding all

aspects of the service initiative (Rhoads, 2000, p. 42). Ultimately, then, to the extent

possible, all service-learning participants should perceive one another “as equals and…as

potential ‘givers’ and receivers,’” (Rhoads, 2000, p. 42) embodying a kind of “two-way

service ethic” in which the service-providers “benefit at least as much, if not more, than

those receiving the actual service" (Sheffield, 2005, p. 48). The type of relationship

between participating service-learning organizations and individual service providers and

recipients outlined above is indicative of what Beilke (2005) calls a “mutually beneficial

partnership” in which all parties are empowered and invited to educate, influence, or

transform the other through “the formation of authentic relationships” (p. 6).

For Sheffield (2005) and Cipolle (2004), such partnership, in turn, challenges “the

power relationship that exists between student and stranger,” i.e., between youth

serviceproviders and service-recipients (Sheffield, 2005, p. 52). To this end, Sheffield

advocates providing youth service-providers and service-recipients ongoing opportunities

to meet and interact as a way of demystifying the experience of one another as “stranger”

and replacing this perception with an authentic feeling of mutual connection (p. 51-2).

Cipolle (2004) stresses the need to involve students in critical reflection and analysis

regarding institutional injustice, the lack of which, in her view, leads to the replication of

inequitable relations between service providers and recipients.

In order to facilitate the ethos of connection outlined above, it is essential for

youth service providers to educate themselves about their selected beneficiary population.

To this end, Sheffield (2005) points out the necessity of researching and learning about

the intended service-recipient population through a variety of media prior to engaging in

actual action/service as a means of preparing for the “‘strangers’” they will encounter (p.

52). Further, Sheffield urges such preparation to “continue throughout the service work

and bring an increasing depth of understanding, as the stranger becomes the familiar”

(p. 52).

If taken to heart, the notions of reciprocity, mutuality, and partnership described

above should raise unease about the use of service-learning terminology such as

“serviceprovider” and “service-recipient” that creates a hierarchical role demarcation

among service-learning participants. Cipolle (2004) cites Rosenberger who expresses

concern that the term “service” suggests an “inequality” in relationship in which one

party, the service provider, actively performs a service for a passive beneficiary, the

service recipient (Rosenberger, 2000, cited in Cipolle, 2004, p. 19).

To address this problem, Cipolle (2004) cites Maybach’s suggestion of the term

“service learners” to designate the providers and recipients of service, as well as the term

“partners in service” to highlight “the cooperative relation of both parties” (Cipolle, 2004,

p. 19). As an alternative, Kaye (2004) appears to address discomfort with the

connotations of inequality regarding the term “service” by substituting for it the term

“action” to designate the second component of the service-learning process.

I stand in agreement with those who express concern about the connotations

involved with the service-learning terminology cited above. However, I am not convinced

that the suggestions for alternative terminology fully address these concerns. First,

Maybach’s suggestion of the phrase “service-learners” to apply to all parties involved in

the service-learning process ignores the descriptive need to have terminology that

distinguishes between school-based youth participants and members of the community

with whom these youth have chosen to engage. Secondly, Kaye’s use of “action” in lieu

of “service” fails to sufficiently address the type of action being conducted or the

pedagogical foundation of this action. What is needed is a term that connotes activity

indicative of global citizenship practice while distinguishing between the vantage point of

a school-based youth and their community-based participants.

For these reasons, I have coined the phrase “global citizenship action-learning” as

my preferred umbrella concept in lieu of “service-learning” pedagogy. Consequently, I

will refer to student participants in global citizenship action-learning as “school-based

action-learning participants” and their communal partners as “community-based

actionlearning participants.” However, given the nearly universal usage of the term

“servicelearning” in scholarly research and writings to designate this pedagogy, I will use

the designation service-learning when referring to scholarly research, while I will use my

original terminology stated above in reference to my personal pedagogical experiences

with middle school youth.

Segue to Chapter Four

The evidence in this chapter supports the notion that global citizenship

actionlearning provides an ideal pedagogy for nurturance of global citizenship

dispositions, identity, and practice in early adolescents, especially within a middle school

context. The ensuing chapter provides an overview of my research methodology as well

as the context in which I worked during this study in my efforts to nurture a global

citizenship community and global citizenship practice among middle school youth during

the 2009-

10 academic year.

Chapter Four: Methodology

Research Question

My overriding research interests focus on the impact of the teacher-students

relationship and the cultivation of global citizenship dispositions, such as those examined

in Chapter Two, in the nurturance of an effective global citizenship community culture

among middle school youth.

Regarding the teacher-students relationship, I examine the role of power and

conflict as triggers for promoting the evolution of this relationship in the areas of

curriculum and agenda-setting, epistemological process, decision-making practices, and

teacher transparency. Additionally, I explore how the nature and evolution of this

relationship impacts my resolution of the valuation conflict between striving to attain the

concrete objectives of our initiative, while attempting to foster youth voice and

empowerment.

Another central element of inquiry involves an assessment of the extent to which

the participating students were able to express motivations for their participation in our

action-learning initiative indicative of global citizenship dispositions or principles as

grounding their global citizenship identity and practice. In particular, I examine evidence

of the students’ capacity to understand, discuss, and internalize aspects of my own global

ethic elaborated upon at length in Chapter Two. Among these dispositions, I am

especially interested in exploring whether my pre-adolescent participants were able to

develop empathic extension and/or compassion for distant, non-intimate, suffering others,

as embodied by Ethiopian students attending the school whose construction our global

citizenship community has attempted to sponsor.

These aspects of my inquiry coalesce to form the following overarching research

question guiding this study: How did I, in my role as teacher-facilitator of an extra-

curricular service club, facilitate development of a collaborative and equitable

teacherstudents relationship and culture aimed at nurturing the voice, empowerment, and

global citizenship dispositions of participating students on behalf of distant, non-intimate,

suffering others?

Research Design Methodology

In this study, I combined and applied practitioner action research and critical

incidents methodologies in order to examine my efforts to facilitate the development of

effective global citizenship practice among the middle school students participating in

this study. I will now offer an overview regarding each of these research methodologies

and a rationale for their selection for this study.

Practitioner Action Research Methodology

In their educator’s guide on developing and implementing action research,

Anderson, Herr and Nihlen (2007) propose a “third way of knowing” or conducting

educational research, besides the use of quantitative or qualitative prescriptions:

practitioner action research or action research done by the practitioner in his/her own site

for purposes of improving practices and/or the site. (p. xix). The authors list several

important ways in which action research differs from the more traditional use of

qualitative research methods. Specifically, they assert that action research produces

knowledge for both the academic community and the “broader community . . . of school

practitioners,” and seeks the “transformation” of the setting under study through praxis,

i.e., through an ongoing cycle of action and reflection (Anderson, Herr and Nihlen, 2007,

p. xix). Given the activist nature of this form of inquiry, action research implies “research

done by practitioners using their own site . . . as the focus of their study”

(Anderson, Herr and Nihlen, 2007, p. 2).

Such “insider” research conforms perfectly with my ongoing role as both a middle

school teacher of global citizenship and facilitator of my Global Care Club. Further, the

transformative purposes of my study are in accordance with the educational mission of

action research as a “vehicle for the empowerment of practitioners, students, and

communities toward a goal of institutional and social change from the inside” (Anderson,

Herr and Nihlen, 2007, p. 47).

The epistemological stance of action research conforms, as well, to my support of

Freire’s dialogical praxis and Bruner’s intersubjective exchange—as outlined in the

preceding chapter—as representing the optimal means of co-creating knowledge. Indeed,

according to Anderson, Herr and Nihlen (2007), action research empowers

teacherpractitioners to conceive of themselves as “knowledge creators in their own right”

(p. 7) in opposition to the prevailing notion of teachers as “passive recipients of

knowledge created in universities” (p. 5). The authors describe this stance of assertion

and defiance as “part of a larger social movement that challenges dominant research and

development approaches that emphasize an outside-in, top-down approach to educational

change”

(Anderson, Herr and Nihlen, 2007, p. 7).

Lastly, the conception of action research as embodying “an ongoing series of

cycles that involve moments of planning actions, acting, observing the effects, and

reflecting on one’s observations” aligns directly with the pedagogical structure of service-

learning outlined in Chapter Three (Anderson, Herr and Nihlen, 2007, p. 3). Such cycles

or “spirals” provide the “data” and reflection necessary for “refinements of research

questions, resolutions of problems, and transformations in the perspectives of researchers

and participants” (Anderson, Herr and Nihlen, 2007, p. 3).

Critical Incidents Methodology

The literature offers a handful of definitions for the phrase “critical incident.”

Halquist and Musanti (2010) cite the following variations: “an everyday event that stands

out (Martin, 1996); vivid happenings that are considered significant or memorable

(Brookfield, 1995; Woods, 1993); a problematic situation that presents itself as a unique

case and promotes reflection (Schön, 1987); or ‘highly charged moments and episodes

that have enormous consequences for personal change and development’” (Sikes, Measor

& Woods, 1985, p. 432).

Tripp (1993) offers a conception of critical incident most closely aligned both

theoretically and practically with the focus of this dissertation. First, like Martin above,

Tripp seeks critical incidents within the domain of everyday events. However, for Tripp,

the “criticality” of such an event is not inherent in the event itself; rather, a critical

incident is derived or “created” by the human capacity to interpret a given event as

meaningful (p. 8). This evaluative process, in turn, promotes the type of reflective inquiry

that can expose teacher-practitioners to the ways in which larger cultural, social, and

political forces help to establish the pattern of routines and events typically deemed as

commonplace and beyond reproach, prompting us to “confront our professional values

and judgements” (Tripp, 1993, p. 17).

Implemented properly, such critique can produce, for Tripp (1993), a kind of

“radical professional consciousness” (p. 17) comparable to Freire’s global citizenship

disposition of critical consciousness as described in Chapter Two. For Tripp, as for

Freire, the natural focus and aim of such radicalized consciousness is social justice. As

Tripp asserts:

Socially critical analysis in education is informed by principles of social

justice. . . It involves strategic pedagogic action on the part of classroom

teachers aimed at emancipation from overt and covert forms of domination. . . .

(I)t is not simply a matter of challenging the existing practices of the system,

but of seeking to understand what makes the system be the way it is and

challenging that, whilst remaining conscious that one’s own sense of justice

and equality is itself open to question (p. 114).

In addition to the conceptual justifications for the application of critical incidents

methodology outlined above, there is a compelling practical argument for its use in the

context of this dissertation: this methodology aligns with the purposes and needs of

teacher-practitioners operating within the domain of practitioner action research. Indeed,

Tripp (1993) makes precisely this claim. That is, the “grounded theory” approach

advocated by Tripp, which encourages and empowers teachers to identify areas of

practice in need of deeper examination and possible revision or transformation through

the application of critical incidents methodology, compels teacher-practitioners to engage

in the action research cycle as a means of applying and analyzing one’s revisions in

practice and values (p. 149-50). Thus, Tripp concludes, “(t)he coupling of these two

frameworks for thought and action . . . provide a potent tool for critique and change of the

autopilot routines which so often pass for successful practice (p. 22).”

Critical Incidents Selection Process

My selection/creation of critical incidents is derived from the review of my data

for the purpose of identifying and categorizing themes of particular relevance to my

research question. Consequently, my search for pertinent critical incidents led me to

identify incidents that amplified or offered insights into my two overarching research

categories: the impact of the teacher-students relationship and culture on the nurturance

of youth voice and empowerment, and the students’ capacity to identify and articulate the

role of global citizenship dispositions on their sense of themselves as capable global

citizenship practitioners.

In order to establish which incidents that occurred during this study merited the

categorization as “critical,” it was necessary to first conduct a thorough review of each of

my data sources. These included: logs chronicling both the pertinent activities and

teacher-students exchanges and conflicts that occurred at our club meetings, as well as a

comprehensive collection of all communications and activities involved with the club’s

action-learning initiative; a researcher’s journal for identifying, elaborating upon, and

developing insights and meaning regarding incidents that I deemed at the time as

potentially or definitively critical; student online journals in which student participants

posted research findings and periodic reflections regarding the impact and meaning of

global citizenship and of our action-learning initiative; audiotaped and transcribed

wholeclub dialogues regarding topics, issues, and concepts pertinent to our particular

initiative and to the overall practice of global citizenship; videoconferencing exchanges

with an American visiting professor in Kenya addressing factors impacting the capacity

of children in Kenya and Ethiopia to obtain quality education; and archival data regarding

the history, conflicts, and accomplishments derived from my experiences in conducting

previous service/action learning initiatives within the same school setting.

As I conducted a series of ongoing reviews of this data, certain conceptual

patterns began to emerge. The derivation of these themes, in turn, produced the following

analytical lenses through which I examined my data: a programmatic lens focused on the

practical components, procedures and pedagogy involved with promoting a successful

action-learning initiative; a conceptual lens concerned primarily with discovering

evidence of the growth of global citizenship dispositions within the students during the

course of our action-learning initiative; a relationship lens which identified and

considered the nature and development of my relationship with my students and the

impact of this relationship on the voices and empowerment of the student participants, as

well as on the overall culture of our global citizenship community; and a pedagogical lens

which identified and made meaning of the ways in which my own values and practices as

a teacher-facilitator evolved during this experience.

After spending significant time thinking and writing through each of these

analytical lenses, I decided that the programmatic focus on the optimal ways of

organizing and implementing an action-learning initiative, while of immense practical

importance to global citizenship teacher-facilitators like me, ultimately interested me less

than the remaining analytical lenses cited above. Consequently, while pertinent aspects

of the programmatic dimension of our action-learning initiative are imbedded within this

study as needed, I have primarily incorporated the analytical lenses exploring global

citizenship dispositions, teacher-students relations and empowerment, global citizenship

culture, and intrapersonal impact to assist me in identifying and selecting the six critical

incidents selected for this study, as well as in crafting the probing questions through

which these critical incidents are examined.

Overview of Selected Critical Incidents

In this section I offer a brief overview of the conflicts, themes, and/or conceptual

categories driving each of the six critical incidents selected for this study. A complete

description of these incidents, as well as an analysis of the findings derived from them,

will be offered in Chapter Five below.

Critical Incident One – Traditional/Hierarchical vs. Collaborative/Equitable

Teacher-Students Relationship in Our Decision-Making Process

Critical Incident One exposes my intrapersonal conflict occurring at the beginning

of this study regarding the degree of voice and power I was willing to encourage in my

students regarding a decision of immense importance to the programmatic direction of

our global citizenship community: that is, whether to continue our current multi-year

Ethiopian School Construction Initiative or to attempt to develop a new action-learning

initiative. While providing my students with ample opportunities to express their

opinions and positions on a number of aspects of global citizenship practice, this critical

incident reveals how my strong desire to continue our current initiative impacted my

pedagogy in ways that were indicative of a traditional/hierarchical approach to

teacherstudents relations.

Critical Incident Two – Values Conflict Between Youth Empowerment and Task

Completion

Critical Incident Two analyzes my efforts to navigate two potentially opposing

values within a middle school global citizenship community: my burgeoning desire to

accentuate youth voice and empowerment and the need to ensure that my students were

prepared to deliver educational presentations regarding our action-learning initiative to

live audiences by a specific timetable. Specifically, my club needed to be ready to deliver

multiple presentations to their SMS student-peers on January 15, 2010, as well as at a

major community-wide fundraising event nine days later. However, as the pace of the

students’ research proceeded too slowly to meet these deadlines, my students and I were

challenged to consider alternative data-gathering strategies as well as to reconsider the

content and format of our presentation. The unavoidable stress associated with these

upheavals in our process caused me to bluntly challenge the task commitment of my

students, as well as my own commitment to persevere in promoting more collaborative

pedagogical practices.

Critical Incident Three – Student Disempowerment, Reexamination of the Values of

our Global Citizenship Community, and a Commitment to Foster a More

Collaborative and Equitable Teacher-Students Relationship

Critical Incident Three charts the evolution of my eventual commitment to

prioritize the cultivation of collaborative and equitable teacher-students relations as the

students and I, along with an event planning committee consisting of parents and local

citizens, attempted to resolve an unanticipated dilemma: what percentage of our

anticipated donations to be derived from our upcoming fundraising event should be

offered to a relief fund on behalf of Haitian earthquake victims. Specifically, this critical

incident reveals the major impact that another interest group in our global citizenship

community—in this case, parents and local citizens involved in planning, organizing, and

implementing a fundraising event on behalf of our action-learning initiative—had on our

teacher-students relationship and culture. The dynamic that unfolded between the parents

and me regarding ownership and decision-making protocol for this event provided me

with firsthand experience in feeling the minimization of my own voice and power and, in

turn, that of my students. As such, this parents-teacher relationship—while essential in

helping us achieve our fundraising objectives—provided me with painful yet important

lessons regarding the ease with which voice and power can be ceded and diminished.

Critical Incident Four – The Ethical Problem of Attempting Change Agency as a

Cultural Outsider: Empowering Students Through Epistemological Partnership

and Critical Discourse

Critical Incident Four is extremely important for two reasons. First, it depicts a

pedagogical breakthrough on my part in promoting youth voice and empowerment

through the use of a transparent, collaborative, and equitable pedagogical process to

conduct a whole-club conversation that promoted epistemological partnership between

the students and me. Indeed, the success of this “Quaker Share” dialogical format led to

its usage on at least six additional occasions through the remainder of this study.

Additionally, the topic addressed in this conversation—the ethical justification, if

any, for attempting intercultural change agency regarding the issue of gender inequity

and, more broadly, regarding any global problem occurring outside one’s personal

cultural venue—engaged students in a level of critique of social institutions not

previously attempted by our community. Recognizing this issue as linked directly to the

ethical justification for the practice of global citizenship writ large, I seized the

opportunity to re-present the idea of such intercultural intervention to my students not as

an ethical given, but as a problem requiring our thoughtful critique and discourse.

Indeed, my effort to involve my students in problematizing something they seemed to

view uncritically as ethically appropriate drove development of this critical incident.

Critical Incident Five – Student Critique of My Global Ethic

Critical Incident Five stands out as a unique marker in the growth of a more

equitable teacher-students relationship and of my efforts to promote the capacity of my

students to identify a handful of global citizenship dispositions influencing our collective

work as global citizenship practitioners. Indeed, this incident represented the first time I

had attempted to share, elaborate upon, and explain to my students the importance of my

global citizenship dispositions to my practice as a global citizen. Prior to this incident,

the notion that our global citizenship practice, as expressed through our action-learning

initiative, embodied some set of ethical ideals or dispositions, while implicit, was never

formally broached. Thus, this sharing of aspects of my global ethic elevated the

importance of identifying and understanding global citizenship dispositions to a

conscious conceptual level.

Additionally, unlike our club’s examination of the question of change agency as a

cultural outsider in the previous critical incident—wherein I simply posed the issue as

one of generic importance to global citizenship practitioners—in this instance I was

asking my students to subject my own deeply held global citizenship dispositions to

student examination. In addition to encouraging epistemological partnership with my

students, this opportunity for student critique delivered a powerful, if implicit, message

that no one’s ethical views—even those of one’s teachers— should be accepted without

scrutiny: that is, without engaging in critical consciousness.

This heightened level of teacher transparency in terms of my own global

citizenship dispositions and my openness to student critique modeled, I believe, the type

of equitable teacher-students relationship to which I aspired. My faith in the students’

capabilities for integrity in their critical examination represented a further growth marker

in my efforts to actualize in my pedagogical practice my newfound convictions regarding

the promotion of youth voice and empowerment.

Critical Incident Six – Development of a Culture of Partnership as Foundational to

the Practice of Global Citizenship

The insight derived from this final critical incident represents a kind of two-way

marker: a culminating insight based on the experiences encompassing the entire study

and an ideal to carry forward into future action-learning initiatives. Specifically, Critical

Incident Six describes how a brief conversation with my “critical friend” for this study

triggered a powerful realization regarding the need to apply my commitment to

cultivating collaborative, equitable, and empowering teacher-students relations with my

own students to the relationship my students and I had thus far established with our

action-learning community partners in Ethiopia. This meant fostering in my students and

me a conception of our relationship with the beneficiaries of our action-learning

initiatives that emphasized partnership and solidarity, recognition of the capacity of one’s

partners, if sufficiently empowered, to express their own interests and voice and to

participate in global citizenship practice, as well as the ethical obligation to facilitate this

type of relationship.

From a practical standpoint, this would mean utilizing ways of connecting with

one’s community partners—through videoconferencing, pen-pal letters, e-mail, website

blogs, and online forums—that invite them, like my own students at SMS, to have

meaningful voice and empowerment in any of the decisions of the action-learning

initiative that affect them. Conceptually, such a commitment to connect with and

cultivate the voice and empowerment of one’s community-based, action-learning partners

would mean recalibrating the emphasis placed on establishing such connections from

desirable, but inessential, to a mandatory first step in embarking on one’s global

citizenship practice. Put in terms of my global citizenship dispositions, such an emphasis

would highlight the necessity of prioritizing intersubjective ethical relations with the

suffering other as a means of ensuring that their voices and faces are acknowledged and

valued.

Probing Questions

After identifying the critical incidents one intends to select and probe more

deeply, it is necessary to apply an analytical mechanism for conducting such an

examination. In order to guide the process of analyzing such incidents, I have adopted

and modified for my particular pedagogical context what Halquist (Halquist & Musanti,

2010)—drawing on several researchers including Tripp (1993)—refers to as “probing

questions” (p. 451).

In the case of this study, I initially articulated a handful of prospective probing

questions and proceeded to apply these questions to analysis of my selected critical

incidents. These initial questions were chosen to examine one of the following areas

crucial to the nurturance of a global citizenship community: the degree to which youth

interests and voice were fostered; the nature of the power relationship between me as the

teacher-facilitator and my student participants, with particular emphasis on whether or

not, and to what degree, my students were empowered by their participation to practice

global citizenship; the evolving nature of the culture of our global citizenship community,

including identification of cultural values that were confirmed or challenged by the

critical incident under consideration; and, lastly, the global citizenship dispositions or

principles that were directly or implicitly cited and promoted. The following probing

questions were then applied to each of the selected critical incidents:

1. Whose interests were served or denied by the actions of this critical incident and

through what process?

2. What power relationships between me, my participating students, and any other

stakeholders in our global citizenship action-learning initiative were expressed by

this critical incident? To what extent were the students empowered by these

relationships?

3. What does this critical incident reveal about the status of the culture of our global

citizenship community? What cultural values were upheld or challenged by this

critical incident?

4. What global citizenship dispositions were expressed by this critical incident?

However, after engaging in this process, I realized that there was significant

overlap and interplay between the major concepts—youth interests and voice, the role of

power and empowerment in our teacher-students relationship, and the culture of our

global citizenship community—examined by my first three probing questions above.

Consequently, I decided to merge probing questions one, two and three cited above into

one single question, while retaining the probing question regarding global citizenship

dispositions. In this way, I derived the following two probing questions that I used to

analyze the six selected critical incidents for this study:

1. What did the actions of this critical incident reveal about the nature of our

teacher-students pedagogical relationship and culture? To what extent, if any, did

the pedagogical relationship/culture showcase youth voice and/or empowerment?

2. What global citizenship dispositions were expressed by this critical incident?

Definitions

For the sake of clarification, it is necessary to provide several working definitions

of key terms/concepts to be utilized in my presentation of findings in the ensuing chapter.

I posit the term “stakeholder” within the context of participation in a global

citizenship action-learning initiative as referring to any individual or group with a clearly

identifiable positionality and set of interests. In this study the stakeholders are: me as

teacher-facilitator of the SMS Global Care Club, each individual student-member of the

SMS Global Care Club, the group of student members of the SMS Global Care Club,

parent and community volunteers, and the students attending the Ethio-American

Friendship School (EAFS). (Note: Within the context of my responses to the above

probing questions, I conceive of my students as a collective or group stakeholder.)

I posit my notion of “interests” pertaining to the context of a participating

stakeholder in a global citizenship action-learning initiative as:

The ability to identify for oneself or one’s stakeholder group positions,

preferences, values, and conditions regarding important issues and decisions

affecting oneself, one’s global citizenship community, and its action-learning

initiative, accompanied by opportunities to articulate or voice these preferences

within a meaningful public context.

I use the word “voice” in the above definition and throughout this study as

containing the following two dimensions: the actual act of expressing one’s opinions and

the sense in which these opinions are expressed with emphasis or power.

I posit my notion of “empowerment” regarding stakeholders in a global

citizenship action–learning initiative as:

The power—consisting of status, choice, control, and impact—to express voice

and interests regarding important issues and decisions impacting oneself, one’s

global citizenship community, and its action-learning initiative, and for this input

to be regarded as critical and necessary input.

It follows from this conception of power relations that empowerment is achieved

by a stakeholder group when the following two conditions are met. First, the stakeholder

group must be provided with a meaningful public context in which to express its views on

matters of significance to its own group, the wider global citizenship community, and its

action-learning initiative. Secondly, the views offered by this stakeholder must be

regarded as critical and necessary input prior to any decision regarding matters of

importance to that stakeholder, the wider global citizenship community, and its

actionlearning initiative.

I use the term “culture” to allude to those beliefs, values, practices, and norms that

characterize an identifiable community. Of course, the community in question for our

purposes is our global citizenship community.

Lastly, in the context of a global citizenship community, a stakeholder can claim

to have some level of “ownership” when the following two conditions are met. First, the

stakeholder must have a satisfactory level of voice and empowerment. Having attained

this level of power, the stakeholder must accept a measure of responsibility for the focus,

direction, and success of one’s global citizenship community in terms of pedagogy and

action. Thus, it is possible for a stakeholder with the power to ensure that its interests and

voice are heard and considered to shirk this latter responsibility and fall short of true

ownership.

Research Settings & Context

The proceeding will provide a brief overview regarding the community in which

this study was undertaken, the quality and reputation of the school system and the

particular school in which I was employed during this study, and the two pedagogical

contexts in which I resided as an “insider”: that is, as a sixth grade teacher of global

citizenship and the faculty advisor of the SMS Global Care Club. While it is important to

briefly overview my role as a classroom teacher and to highlight the connection to my

work as facilitator of Global Care, as well as the role of parents and colleagues in support

of this community, the primary focus of this dissertation is the students who self-selected

to participate in the Global Care Club, as well as our joint teacher-student efforts to form

a community of conscience for the practice of global citizenship.

It is important to note that the following data regarding the community of Sunrise,

Sunrise Public Schools, and Sunrise Middle School were derived from recent online

demographic sources. However, in order to preserve the confidentiality of the

participants in this study, I refrain from sharing specific citation information either in the

body of the text or in the bibliography.

The Community of Sunrise – Socio-Economic Composition

Sunrise is an affluent, highly educated, ethnically diverse, low crime, suburban

community of about 15,000 residents located about ten miles outside a major northeastern

city. As of 2009, the year in which my study began, the estimated median household

income was approximately $115,000, and the estimated median house or condo value was

about $710,000, while unemployment was below 8%. Regarding educational status, 62%

of residents 25 years and over have at least a Bachelor’s degree, and 33% have a graduate

or professional degree. The town’s racial makeup consists primarily of “whites” (63%)

and “Asians” (26%), with “Hispanics” representing the next highest percentage at 7%.

The “Black” or “African-American” population includes about

250 residents or fewer than 2% of the total population.

Foreign-born residents make up 29% of the population of Sunrise: 17% from

Asia, 7% from Europe, and 3% from Latin America. Regarding law-enforcement and

safety issues, violent crime is virtually non-existent, while burglaries and thefts represent

the bulk of the criminal activity. Further, 75% of its residents are affiliated with a

religious congregation, well above the national average of about 50%, with 72%

adherents of the Catholic Church. By comparison to the state average, Sunrise is

classified as “significantly above” the state average in: median household income, median

house value, percentage of the population with a Bachelor’s degree or higher, and the

percentage of Hispanic and foreign born residents; even its relatively tiny percentage of

African-American residents ranks above the state average.

Sunrise Public Schools

As the preceding data about Sunrise suggests, education is a highly regarded

value of its residents and probably one of the central reasons why its families move there.

With roughly 3,200 students attending six schools, the Sunrise Public School system

offers an outstanding educational experience, as evidenced by its exceedingly high annual

statewide rankings. For example, a prominent statewide magazine ranked Sunrise High

School among the top several districts in their state for both 2008 and 2010, while

according to an online rating site, the Sunrise school district is rated better than 96% of

statewide districts and 98% of districts nationwide. About 95% of its students, including

those attending ELL classes in which English is not their native language, score at the

level of “proficient” in statewide math and reading tests. This data, as well as the

information about the Sunrise population supplied above, strongly suggests that the

majority of students attending the Sunrise school district are well-prepared for academic

success.

Sunrise Middle School (SMS)

Sunrise Middle School contains grades six to eight, with a total student population

of 802 and a full-time teaching staff of 70 for the 2009-10 school year, resulting in an

11.4 students per teacher ratio. While this ratio is distorted by the fact that some full-time

teachers offer specialized instruction for a handful of students, from my observations,

there are typically about 20 or so students in the academic classes, a ratio I consider quite

conducive to quality teaching and learning, and which makes it possible to develop a

better understanding of each of one’s students.

SMS is organized by academic teams consisting of language arts, math, science

and social studies teachers that solely teach the student members of their team. Global

citizenship classes are not considered part of a particular academic team; rather, these

classes are integrated into the school’s “integrated arts” team, consisting of classes in art,

music, physical education, family life, and technology.

Grade Six Global Citizenship Classes

At the time of this action research project in 2009-10, I was employed as a teacher

of global citizenship for sixth graders. (My schedule was revised to include grades seven

and eight for the 2010-11 academic year.) During 2009-10, I taught 14 classes in total,

spanning each of three sixth grade academic teams for the entire academic year, by

teaching each team of classes every third day; in this way, I taught global citizenship to

every sixth grade student with the exception of students in the special education and ELL

programs. In total, I taught approximately 55 lessons with each of the students in my

global citizenship classes. Given an average of between 18-20 students per class, I taught

about 250 students during the 2009-2010 academic year of my study. Prior to this

assignment, I was a sixth grade teacher of both language arts and reading in the Sunrise

school district from 1994 through 2008.

Given the opportunity to interact with the majority of sixth grade students, my

global citizenship course has had the effect of serving as a kind of conceptual orientation

for participation in my Global Care extracurricular club. Thus, while my sixth grade

classes provided a solid academic introduction to concepts and knowledge related to

global citizenship, the Global Care Club provided the venue in which self-selecting

students could participate with me in developing a community of conscience for the

purpose of practicing global citizenship.

The Sunrise Middle School Global Care Club

The SMS Global Care Club is the founding student chapter of a nonprofit

organization I started in February 2000 called “Global Care Unlimited, Inc.” for the

purpose of promoting global citizenship in middle school youth through participation in

global citizenship action-learning initiatives. At its founding, the SMS chapter was called

the “Landmine Awareness Club,” based on our initial focus on the global landmine

problem. Since then, the renamed “Global Care Club” has conducted multi-year,

humanitarian initiatives in support of communities in Cambodia and Ethiopia.

Students from grades six to eight self-select to participate in the club, which meets

in my classroom three times per week on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday mornings

before school from 7:30 – 8:15 a.m., and after school as needed. Meetings take place in

my classroom or a computer room, both of which are located on the second floor.

Students are not required to attend all meetings; rather, they are encouraged to attend as

many as possible, given their other extracurricular commitments. After-school meetings

usually consist of student workshops related to the development and presentation of their

educational products or organizational/planning meetings for upcoming events and

presentations.

Ongoing activities and areas of focus include: engagement in educational

experiences and research to select a global problem or theme and a geographic focus;

establishment of partnerships with individuals, communities and non-governmental

organizations capable of co-planning and implementing the on-the-ground direct services

sponsored by the club; creation and delivery of educational presentations in a range of

contexts involving students, parents, and the local community; and planning,

organization, and implementation of educational and/or fundraising events in support of

our action or service objectives. I also typically form a Global Care Parents’ Committee

which provides advice and practical support regarding our major annual events, as well as

outreach into the local community.

Roughly fifteen students remained committed to the club during its founding year.

Since then, a range of fifteen to twenty students have maintained membership in the club

for at least one academic year. Each year the previous year’s eighth grade students

graduate to Sunrise High School, while a new roster of sixth graders enters Sunrise

Middle School. For the 2009-10 academic year, there were 17 club members who

sustained regular attendance for the entire year.

Current Global Citizenship Action-Learning Initiative -- Background Context

During the academic year of this study, the focus of the SMS Global Care Club

was to continue support for our ongoing global citizenship action-learning initiative

dubbed, “The Ethiopian School Construction Initiative” or ESCI. This focus was

established following intensive student-teacher research and discussion within the SMS

Global Care Club during the 2006-2007 school year to determine a global problem and

geographic focus. Eventually, our club decided to focus on the problem of access to

quality education within the region of Sub-Saharan Africa. By spring 2007, the students

and I developed a partnership with Ethiopian literacy advocate, Tessema Alemu, to

sponsor construction of a Pre-K to Grade 10 school (Ethiopian students receive their high

school diploma following tenth grade) in Awassa, Ethiopia, to be called, “The

EthioAmerican Friendship School: A Global Care Partner” or EAFS.

Within the context of this focus, students developed and delivered educational

presentations both within and outside SMS based on their original reflections and poems

as well as their research into self-selected topics of cultural and humanitarian importance

pertaining to Sub-Saharan Africa and Ethiopia. In addition to developing an educational

initiative, the students and I planned and organized—with notable guidance and

assistance from the Global Care Parents’ Committee—public fundraising events for the

2007-2008 school year. Ultimately, through the efforts of the Global Care student

chapters and parent committees of the Sunrise and Eastwood middle schools, Global Care

raised $65,000 in one school year toward construction of a 12-room (Pre-K to Grade 8)

sister school in Awassa, Ethiopia.

Despite the enormous success of our initiative, heading into the year of this study

there was more work needed to support construction and other needs of our Ethiopian

sister school (EAFS). In addition, the Global Care students and I expressed the

determination to initiate and forge ongoing connections with students from EAFS via

pen-pal letters, ultimately leading, we hope, to a trip to Ethiopia and EAFS.

It is within the context of this unfolding narrative of youth engagement in an

ongoing global citizenship action-learning initiative that I conducted action research to

document and assess the effectiveness of my pedagogical practices to nurture a global

citizenship community at Sunrise Middle School for the cultivation of global citizenship

dispositions, identity, and practice among participating youth.

Youth Participants in the Action Research Project

Student research participants included any members of the SMS Global Care Club

from grades six to eight who signed assent forms and whose parents signed assent and

consent forms approving of their child’s participation. Student participants were expected

to remain as active club participants for the entire academic year under review. “Active

participation” was defined as attendance at an average of two morning meetings per

week, plus participation in research, planning, and preparation for Global Care’s

educational and fundraising events. Action research participants were also required to

keep an online reflection journal that I had access to, subject to student consent.

Before introducing the club’s student members to the purpose and requirements of

my study and providing them with the assent and consent forms, I decided it was

necessary to provide club members with an understanding and experience of our club’s

history, mission, past and current initiatives, and pedagogical processes; I felt this would

provide students, especially incoming sixth graders, with some basis for determining their

prospective interest in participating. Given the fact, as explained above, that not every

student attended every meeting, it was necessary to use significant portions of each of our

club meetings during the week of October 19th to ensure that each student had the

opportunity to learn about my dissertation research and my invitation for their

participation.

By the time students were presented with this opportunity for participation, 17 of

the 48 sixth graders and eight of the twenty two seventh and eighth graders who had

attended at least one club meeting to that point had stopped attending. (An additional

seven students did not attend any of the meetings held during the week of October 19th,

but did attend one or more meetings after that week. However, each of these latter

students soon stopped attending the club as well.) This meant that a total of 38 club

members were informed of the opportunity to participate in my action research

dissertation.

Of that number, 20 students returned the necessary assent and consent forms to

participate. Of these students, an additional five discontinued participation: four

eventually stopped attending club meetings and one moved to another town.

Consequently, a total of 15 students participated in my action research for the duration of

the school year: ten sixth graders (Kevon, Gillian, Lan, Malka, Cynthia, Xavier, Sam,

Rachel, Martin, and Zain), two seventh graders (Anandani and Vanessa), and three eighth

graders (Bethany, Huan, and Sean). The preceding names are pseudonyms to protect the

privacy of the student participants. Each of the seventh and eighth grade participants had

been Global Care Club members the previous school year, while the three eighth graders

had been members since sixth grade. Further, six of the participants were boys and nine

were girls.

To the best of my knowledge, each of the participants experience lives of social,

cultural, educational, and economic privilege reflective of the relative level of affluence

of the Sunrise community outlined above. However, this privilege among adolescent

youth does not necessarily translate into a predisposition or values orientation conducive

to the nurturance of global citizenship dispositions. Indeed, in her focus on the affective

and ethical lives of affluent adolescent youth, Levine (2008) declares that “(A)ffluent

communities excessively emphasize individualism, perfection, accomplishment,

competition, and materialism, while giving short shrift to more prosocial values such as

cooperation, altruism, and philanthropy” (p. 178). Further, Levine states that “preteens

and teens from affluent, well-educated families . . . experience among the highest rates of

depression, substance abuse, anxiety disorders, somatic complaints, and unhappiness of

any group of children in this country” (p. 17). I cite Levine’s assertions not to suggest

personal knowledge regarding whether or not any of my student participants had entered

this study with resistance to prosocial values or mental health issues such as those listed

above. However, I believe it is important to understand the types of competing pressures

and social-psychological challenges with which my student participants were likely

confronted.

From the standpoint of cultural, ethnic, religious, and racial identity, there was a

fair degree of diversity among the student participants. For example, of the fifteen

students who fulfilled the requirements for participation for the entire academic year, six

had parents who were born outside of the United States (Ghana, Israel, Vietnam, and

India), while five—Malka (Israel), Lan (Vietnam), Xavier (Argentina), Anandani (India),

and Huan (China)—were themselves born abroad. Additionally, while I am not aware of

the degree to which any of these students or their parents may have actively practiced

religion, the religious heritage from which they derived included Christianity, Judaism,

Hinduism (Anandani), and Buddhism (Lan). Regarding the racial makeup of the student

participants, eleven were Caucasian, three were Asian (Lan, Anandani and Huan), and

one was African-American (Kevon).

Data Collection and Sources

Broadly speaking, my research focus requires methods for documenting and

understanding the experiences and meaning–making of a number of stakeholders,

including the participating students and me, teaching colleagues, administrators, parents,

and community members. However, since the central focus of my research involved the

ongoing work conducted between consenting student members of the Global Care Club

and me, it was of particular importance to develop collection gathering and analysis

methods targeted to this focus. That is, I needed to utilize research methods that most

effectively garnered and represented the efforts of the students and me to reflect upon,

make meaning of, and assess our efforts to facilitate our individual growth as global

citizenship practitioners and our collective growth as a global citizenship community. To

this end, I employed the following data gathering methods: researcher activity log, club

meeting log, researcher journal, student online journals, whole-club dialogues,

videoconferences, “critical friend” conversations, and archival data regarding the history

and accomplishments—past and present—of Global Care’s global citizenship

actionlearning initiatives. I will proceed with a brief elaboration regarding each of these

methods of data gathering.

Researcher Activity Log

Throughout this study I maintained an activity log to record chronological

documentation of literally every aspect of my daily experience as the teacher-facilitator of

the SMS Global Care Club and coordinator for Global Care’s Ethiopian School

Construction Initiative. Specifically, this log provided an accurate and comprehensive

collection and organization of the daily e-mails, phone calls, activities, conflicts, and

decisions pertinent to this research, which in turn suggested topics for reflection in my

researcher journal.

Club Meeting Log

Along with the activity log cited above, I maintained a log of student attendance,

my meeting/lesson plans, and brief anecdotal reflections, as warranted, regarding each of

my morning meetings with the SMS Global Care Club. In addition, I recorded every

word students recorded on the chalkboard and white board in response to my teacher

prompts or “splashes” in which students would simultaneously record their reflections.

This data proved invaluable in accurately documenting the teaching strategies, student

reactions, topics, problems, direction, and timeframe of our yearlong effort to nurture our

community of conscience while engaging in an ongoing global citizenship actionlearning

initiative.

Researcher Journal

My researcher journal was the site for my more extended descriptions, reflections,

and assessments regarding the major concepts, themes, and questions framing this study,

with particular attention to pedagogy, process, experiences, communication, interactions,

problems, decisions, and outcomes regarding my joint efforts with the student members

of the SMS Global Care to form an effective global citizenship community and successful

global citizenship action-learning initiative. As such, my researcher journal contained

qualitative data essential for understanding and interpreting the significance and meaning

of this action research.

I had no set schedule for recording my reflections. Rather, I posted reflections

when compelled to do so in response to pertinent scenarios, conflicts, decisions, topics,

themes, and questions. My reflections varied in length from one paragraph to multiple

pages. Specifically, I posted a total of 52 reflections covering over 100 pages over the

course of this 10 month study, spanning September 2009 through June 2010.

Student Online Journals

In addition to my researcher journal, my intention was for each participating

student to maintain an online journal documenting his/her ongoing participation in our

global citizenship action-learning initiative, as well as his/her own reflections, insights,

and meaning-making efforts inspired by self and teacher prompts. I, in turn, planned on

reviewing each student journal and providing written and/or oral feedback where

appropriate, thereby ensuring my ongoing awareness of the issues, challenges, and topics

most compelling and pertinent to the students.

Unfortunately, one shortcoming of each of the participants was their resistance to

using their journal pages for this purpose on their own initiatives. In reality, the students

posted four significant reflections over the course of this study. Two of these postings

came in response to my teacher prompts or questions given to the students at strategic

points in our global citizenship action-learning initiative during the weeks of January 13th

and June 4th respectively. The other two postings resulted from student responses to club

activities we had conducted between November 2009 and January 2010. The former

activity involved student responses to our whole-club and independent viewing of the

Time for School video series chronicling the experiences of children attending school for

the first time in different regions of the world. The latter reflection opportunity was in

response to the students’ research of global problems as members of research working

groups. In each of the latter reflection scenarios, the students did not respond to a

specific set of teacher questions; rather, they posted observations and reflections they

deemed important.

My first teacher prompt was given to the students on January 13, 2010. My

pedagogical purpose was to encourage the students to consider the importance and

meaning of their participation as youth practitioners of global citizenship in our

actionlearning initiative on behalf of non-intimate others. To this end, I posted six

prompt questions on my website and asked the students to respond to at least two of these

questions. (Most students posted responses to several of the prompts.)

I posted my second and final set of eight prompt questions for the students the

week of June 4, 2010. This set of questions was triggered in response to the concept of

“global citizenship community” that I had broached at the end of a videoconference the

Global Care Club had participated in on May 28th. The timing of this set of prompts

indirectly served as a means of obtaining a year-ending reflection that provided a window

into the students’ understandings about the meaning of their experiences and the personal

and communal growth they had experienced during the course of this study.

Whole-club Dialogues

In addition to their online journals, students were given opportunities to share and

explore their reflections in the context of periodic whole-club discussions about a range

of topics and issues related to our global citizenship action-learning initiative and to

major concepts of global citizenship. These dialogues differed from the online reflection

journals in three basic ways. First, I introduced the topics for our dialogues and

participated in the conversations as needed. Secondly, student comments were made

orally and publicly, as opposed to in the privacy of their online journals. Lastly, each

student’s comments had the potential to directly influence the thinking and reflections of

their peers.

I facilitated a total of eight whole-club dialogues during the months of February

through June 2010. Each of these conversations was audiotaped and transcribed verbatim

and ranged in duration from 20 to 30 minutes. I drew extensively on these conversations

in two of the critical incidents selected above. In particular, whole-club dialogues

provided significant content for Critical Incident Four involving change agency as a

cultural outsider and Critical Incident Five regarding my sharing and my students’

critique of my global ethic.

Videoconferencing Sessions

On two occasions during this study, I was able to arrange for my club members to

participate in videoconferences. Each of these videoconferences was audiotaped and

transcribed verbatim and lasted approximately 90 minutes.

The first conference occurred on March 26, 2010, with Dr. Caroline Malloy, who

was spending the 2009-10 academic year training teachers at Kigali University in

Rwanda. This conference provided my students with an extraordinary window into the

culture and challenges confronting educators and students in a region of the world—

SubSaharan Africa—with similar problems and living conditions as those for the students

and families being serviced at our Ethiopian sister school (EAFS).

The second videoconference on May 28, 2010, featured both Dr. Malloy and

Tessema Alemu. This conference was made especially unique by its circumstances: Dr.

Malloy, speaking from Rwanda, shared her recent experiences traveling in Ethiopia and

visiting EAFS, while Mr. Alemu joined my Global Care students for the conference at

SMS, where he had just arrived for a visit. These remarkable circumstances enabled my

students to ask questions of both Dr. Malloy and Mr. Alemu, as well as to listen to each of

them engage in direct dialogue about EAFS and Ethiopia. Both of these

videoconferencing experiences provided unique forums for student expression and

learning, which in turn offered me important data regarding my students and our

Ethiopian sister school.

Critical Friend Conversations

In order to assist me in my ongoing evaluation of my global citizenship practice

with my students during this study, I selected my academic Social Studies supervisor, Mr.

Tom Gordon, to serve as my “critical friend” in this process. The selection of Mr. Gordon

as my critical friend for this study was based on my high regard for his capacity to

provide constructive critical feedback regarding my pedagogical practice. We conducted

several such conversations during this study. The importance of one of these

conversations, in particular, in prompting my growth as a global citizenship facilitator is

documented in my description of Critical Incident Six in the ensuing chapter.

Archival Data

My last source of data for this action research study involved my access to a wide

range of communication and documents related to all aspects of my past and present

global citizenship work with the SMS Global Care Club, including mission statements,

promotional materials for club events, media articles, previous students writings

(reflections, stories, poems), my own published articles and writings, website

documentation, and e-mail correspondence. All of this information enabled me to

provide an accurate account of the history, development, and accomplishments of the

global citizenship action-learning initiatives conducted by the SMS Global Care Club and

its parent organization, Global Care Unlimited, Inc.

Data Analysis

In this study I apply what Tripp (1993) refers to as “socially critical analysis” to

analyze the critical incidents selected for this study (p. 120). Such analysis seeks to

undercover the underlying values and “social relations” occurring between participants in

a particular scenario in order to derive wider implications regarding “access, autonomy

and power” (Tripp, 1993, p. 120): that is, the areas of concern investigated by the

probing questions I have selected to apply to my critical incidents analysis. Thus, from

the perspective of socially critical analysis, the form and meaning of seemingly routine

practical daily interactions occurring within socially and culturally constructed systems

such as schools and classrooms are necessarily informed by sets of assumptions, values,

and cultural/historical precedent so embedded within daily practice as to be rendered

“invisible” even—or especially—to those who spend their days immersed within the

systems. In this way, such analysis works by recognizing or making visible those social,

political, and cultural practices that create such invisibility, as well as by acknowledging

the specific ways in which such embeddedness and invisibility has impacted one’s own

practice.

If successful, such analysis should have the effect of producing practitioner

reflection and self-criticism that, in turn, can promote meaningful changes and revisions

in one’s own practice. Such an outcome of one’s analysis aligns perfectly with the

purposes of practitioner action research outlined above.

My efforts to apply socially critical analysis led me to posit a number of

prospective thematic and topical approaches to my data as well as to search for

connections between them. Ultimately, this cyclical and interactive dialogue between my

data and the thematic concepts they presented led me to adopt an analytic focus on the

overarching themes of my teacher-students pedagogical relationship, youth voice and

empowerment, our global citizenship culture, and global citizenship dispositions as

expressed through the probing questions cited above. In this way, I concluded that the

linkage of critical incident methodology with socially critical analysis best served my

analytical purposes.

My Positionality as a Researcher

Since practitioner action research and critical incidents methodology are focused

so intimately upon the evolving values, perspectives, and insights of the particular

practitioner conducting the data collection and analysis, it is imperative that he share

whatever information about himself that may be deemed as orienting or providing a

subjective element to the lens by which he derives his insights and conclusions. With this

responsibility in mind, it is necessary to remind the reader of such particular aspects of

my personal and professional experiences and outlook that could influence my

practitioner research lens.

Regarding personal/biographical influences, I am a white male of approximately

fifty years of age. I am a husband and a father of two children adopted from Ethiopia. As

a child, I was raised and attended public school in a middle-class, suburban community in

the same county as the school in which this present study was conducted. Both of my

parents can be described as educational professionals, with my father having attained the

status of full professor at a public college in the local major city. My undergraduate

degree was in Philosophy, and I have carried with me a keen interest in ethical issues

throughout my adulthood, with a special emphasis on problems of social justice.

At the time of this study, I had taught for approximately 20 years in public school

settings. My first four years I taught language arts at a primary school in an extremely

underprivileged section of the nearby major city. My last 15 years have been spent

teaching language arts and, most recently, global citizenship, at the middle school which

served as the site of this study. In addition to these classroom experiences, I founded a

middle school club in 1996 called Heroes of Conscience that evolved several years later

into the Landmine Awareness Club and, in turn, into the Global Care Club. Each of these

incarnations is connected by the common mission of promoting opportunities to nurture

global citizenship in middle school youth. I have been facilitating educational and/or

action-learning initiatives since the 1997-98 school year. To provide organization and

support to these efforts, I formed the non-profit organization called Global Care

Unlimited, Inc.

Criteria for Determining Validity

Herr and Anderson (2005) offer five criteria for determining the quality or

“validity” of an action research study: “the generation of new knowledge, the

achievement of action-oriented outcomes, the education of both researcher and

participants, results that are relevant to the local settings, and a sound and appropriate

research methodology” (p. 54). I will now briefly list and outline the authors’ five criteria

for evaluating the success of a given action research study and attempt to explicate in

what ways their criteria may be useful in evaluating the trustworthiness of my own action

research.

Process Validity

Herr and Anderson (2005) posit dialogic or “process validity” to indicate the need

for data to be derived from a “series of reflective cycles that include the ongoing

problematization of the practices under study” (p. 55). As part of this process, the authors

assert that such reflection “should include looping back to reexamine underlying

assumptions behind problem definition” (Herr and Anderson, 2005, p. 55). In addition to

ensuring the ongoing use of reflective cycles, the authors suggest the use of

“triangulation”: that is, “the inclusion of multiple perspectives” as a means of guarding

against the tendency to view data through a single favorable lens (Herr and Anderson,

2005, p. 56). Such safeguards, the authors believe, can ensure the production of truly

authentic knowledge.

In this study, my researcher journal provided the major site where I posted my

efforts to understand, problematize, and analyze the ways in which my personal and

professional values and assumptions as an educator, researcher, and aspiring global

citizen may have influenced my practice with students. The accuracy of my data was

ensured through maintenance of my researcher activity log (which notated all daily

activities related to our action-learning initiative) as well as by my club meeting log,

which described the purpose, procedures, and activities of each of the ninety club

meetings held during this study. To ensure that the perspectives and voices of the

participating students were documented accurately and fully, I developed both written and

oral systems for collecting such data, including the creation of an online journal page on

our club website for each participating student, as well as by audiotaping and transcribing

eight whole-club dialogues and two videoconferences. Taken collectively, this range of

data collection methods satisfied, in my view, the authors’ requirements of the continual

reexamination of data, and the need for multiple perspectives and multiple methods of

deriving them.

Outcome Validity

The authors posit the notion of “outcome validity” to determine whether or not an

action research study fostered and achieved action pertinent to the question or problem of

the study (Herr and Anderson, 2005, p. 55). From the authors’ perspective, successful

outcomes are achieved not by whether or not a problem has been resolved, but by the

extent to which the ongoing cycle of research “forces the researcher to reframe the

problem in a more complex way, often leading to a new set of questions or problems,”

which, in turn, promotes “the spiraling dynamic that characterizes the process of most

action research over a sustained period of inquiry” (Herr and Anderson, 2005, p. 55). The

use of reflective journals by the teacher-researcher and the students, as well as ongoing

teacher-students conversations regarding both the process and outcomes of the global

citizenship action-learning initiative documented in this dissertation, provided excellent

resources for encouraging development of new and evolving sets of questions and

problems, requiring, in turn, new instantiations or cycles of proactive inquiry.

Catalytic Validity

For Herr and Anderson (2005), “catalytic validity” profiles the “transformative

potential of action research” by mapping the extent to which all research participants,

including the researcher herself, “deepen their understanding of the social reality under

study and (are) moved to some action to change it (or to reaffirm their support of it)” (p.

56). The authors cite journaling as a central means of chronicling these anticipated

insights, awakenings, and/or transformations of thought and perspective (Herr and

Anderson, 2005, p. 56-7). I believe such personal and group transformations were

welldocumented in this study by journaling, whole-club discussions, and the breadth of

other data-gathering methodologies cited above.

Democratic Validity

“Democratic validity” seeks to examine “the extent to which research is done in

collaboration with all parties who have a stake in the problem under investigation” as

well as the depth and breadth of this collaboration (Herr and Anderson, 2005, p. 56). The

point of this checkpoint is to ensure that the “multiple perspectives and material interests”

of all stakeholders and those impacted by a given study are given voice and duly

considered in evaluating the study’s success (Herr and Anderson, 2005, p. 56). This

criterion also requires that the focus of the study be on those local participants impacted

directly by it. As with process validity, the use of a wide range of methods for obtaining

the reflections of all stakeholders supported the democratic and multi-voiced nature of my

study.

Dialogic Validity

Lastly, Herr and Anderson (2005) posit “dialogic validity” to capture the

importance of the researcher engaging in some form of informal accreditation process

that provides a degree of professional assessment or “peer review” regarding his study.

The authors list several methods for engaging in ongoing evaluation, such as participation

“in critical and reflective dialogue with other action researchers or work with a critical

friend who is familiar with the setting and can serve as devil’s advocate for alternative

explanations of research data” (Herr and Anderson, 2005, p. 57). For the purpose of

engaging in such analysis, I identified a site-based critical friend, as noted above, to

support the ongoing critique of my doctoral committee.

Limitations of the Study

The uniqueness of the process and research methodology employed in this study

contains inherent limitations on the capacity to generalize my conclusions to other sites.

This notion of uniqueness encompasses the contextual particularities of the setting, the

relationship between the student participants and me as the practitioner-researcher, as

well as those attributes of personality and experience unique to all people. However, it is

both my hope and belief that my efforts to provide thick description and meaningful

analysis can enable, to some degree, the transfer of important aspects of the knowledge,

conclusions, and insights derived from my study to the sites of fellow educators.

Significance of the Study

This study is significant in that it attempts to address a number of gaps in the

scholarly literature regarding service-learning—or what I refer to as global citizenship

action-learning—and pedagogical practices aimed at nurturing global citizenship

awareness and practice among early adolescents. Indeed, my research could find no

study that offered a comprehensive examination of any aspect of global citizenship

pedagogy and practice among middle school youth. This study provides a constructive

step toward filling this research gap by providing rich description and analysis regarding

my joint efforts with my students to create a global citizenship community and culture

within the context of an action-learning initiative.

Further, much of this description is dominated by the presence and voices of my

student participants, as derived through the range of data sources cited above. This

emphasis on obtaining and sharing youth voice addresses another glaring gap in the

scholarly research regarding service-learning and global citizenship pedagogy: the virtual

absence of any serious description of the experiences of youth—in particular, of early

adolescents—as understood and articulated by the participating youth themselves.

Finally, this study also offers valuable suggestions and insights to prospective

global citizenship action-learning facilitators regarding some of the pitfalls, conflicts and

tension-points that practitioners can expect to encounter while working with early

adolescents on developing a global citizenship community. In conclusion, I believe my

study offers a unique experiential and conceptual window into the daunting yet rewarding

pedagogical and interpersonal challenges likely to confront any teacher-facilitator who

embraces the mission of nurturing global citizenship identity and practice among middle

school youth.

Chapter Five: Findings and Discussion

The purpose of this chapter is to share my findings related to the data derived

from those critical incidents outlined in the preceding chapter. The major overarching

categories I selected for analysis are the nature of my teacher-students pedagogical

relationship and culture, and global citizenship dispositions connected to global

citizenship practice. Within the category involving my teacher-students relationship and

culture, I have included the following topics: control over the epistemological process,

curriculum and agenda, decision-making protocol, teacher transparency or visibility,

values, voice, and empowerment.

This analysis is organized using critical incidents methodology in the following

manner. First, for each critical incident, I will offer descriptions of the micro-incidents or

episodes that constitute the critical incident. Then I will present my analysis of each

critical incident using the two probing questions discussed in the preceding chapter.

Before beginning this process, I would like to foreshadow three linked and

overarching thematic directions that will be addressed in my analysis of the foregoing

critical incidents. First, these incidents trace an evolutionary arc in my values and

priorities as a teacher-facilitator, as I navigated the tension between my initial emphasis

on the programmatic aspects of our action-learning initiative—as revealed by my

insistence on our following a particular process for conducting our action-learning

initiative and my focus on achievement of our initiative’s tangible, quantifiable objectives

regarding fundraising, public presentations, etc.—and of my emerging emphasis on the

need to promote the voice and empowerment of the students within the pedagogical and

action-learning process.

A second connecting theme of my analysis, linked inextricably to the theme cited

above, involved the evolving nature of my relationship with my students. Initially, my

lack of familiarity with the personalities, capabilities, and commitment levels of the

students promoted my propensity to practice a more traditional teacher-students relational

dynamic in which important decisions regarding pedagogy and decision-making resided

within my purview. This hierarchical type of relationship tended to reinforce my

valuation of the programmatic aspects of the action-learning initiative.

Conversely, as my relationship with my students gained in understanding and

trust, I demonstrated a capacity to minimize or even sacrifice my valuation of the

programmatic elements of our initiative in lieu of my efforts to nurture a more

collaborative and equitable teacher-students relationship emphasizing students’ voice,

empowerment, and ownership regarding all aspects of our initiative. Indeed, the type of

collaborative and empowering pedagogical relationship that my students and I were

moving toward by the completion of this study undoubtedly prepared me to internalize

the culminating personal insight of the study: the necessity to establish an equitable and

empowering relationship between all participating parties—grounded in the global

citizenship disposition of intersubjective ethical relations discussed in Chapter Two—as

the starting foundation for any global citizenship action-learning initiative aimed at

connecting to the face and voice of the distant, non-intimate other. Essentially, the

findings contained in this chapter use my selected critical incidents to document the joint

relational journey my students and I undertook to develop such intersubjective ethical

relations between each other.

A third thematic thread follows directly from my foregoing analysis: that is, the

ethical responsibility of a teacher to attempt to make visible or transparent to his students

the existence of a culture of power traditionally favoring teachers, the teacher’s own

beliefs and positions, and the ways in which these factors impact the students’ capacity

for expressing voice and empowerment. Indeed, given the predominant pedagogical

experience of children as the more passive recipients of choices made by teachers and

administrators on their behalf, it would be difficult for both teachers and students to be

able to see beyond the entrenched normalcy of such a daily cultural practice. Thus, a

major conceptual lens through which this study can be understood is through identifying

and charting the ways in which teacher power and transparency are recognized,

acknowledged, and negotiated between the students and me.

With these overriding thematic threads in mind, I proceed to describe and analyze

my six selected critical incidents.

Critical Incident One: Traditional/Hierarchical vs. Collaborative/Equitable

Teacher-Students Relationship in Our Decision-Making Process

Episode One

9/21/09 – Phone Conversation with Colleague – Considerations for Facilitation of a

Culture for Global Citizenship Community

Eleven days prior to my first meeting of the 2009-10 academic year with the SMS

Global Care Club, I received a thought-provoking phone call from a teacher colleague

working in another district, Frank Logan. (The previous year, with my assistance, Mr.

Logan had organized his own Global Care chapter for the purpose of helping us raise

funds towards construction of the Ethio-American Friendship School or EAFS.) Mr.

Logan explained that he had spent the first three weeks of the school year with his

problem-solving class reading Three Cups of Tea about the remarkable efforts of an

American, Greg Mortenson, to construct public schools in Pakistan and Afghanistan; the

students, in turn, had expressed an interest in organizing a fundraiser for Mortensen’s

organization. Given Mr. Logan’s commitment to assisting our club in raising funds for

EAFS, he expressed unease about how to—and whether he should—redirect the students’

authentic energy regarding Mortenson’s school-building project to our Ethiopian School

Construction Initiative.

In responding, I offered what I deemed to be an appropriate level of objective

detachment. That is, I tried to work with him to consider what would be best for Mr.

Logan and his students, apart from my interest in his support of our action-learning

initiative. Regarding the issue of connecting his problem solving class to his Global Care

chapter, I stated that he needed to consider the culture of his class. How did he want

decisions in his class to be made regarding matters such as the potential beneficiaries of

action/service? Did he see this decision as separate from or connected to his own Global

Care club? Certainly, I told him, he could make the connection between learning about

Mortensen’s work in building schools for girls in Pakistan and Afghanistan and Global

Care’s current Ethiopian school-building initiative.

However, my efforts to assist Mr. Logan in his own dilemma served to highlight a

similar conflict I had been feeling about the culture of my own global citizenship

community at SMS, specifically in regards to our club’s decision-making processes. A

number of questions leapt to mind. To what extent should youth—in particular, early

adolescents—be empowered to voice their opinions and participate in decision-making

regarding the above? Should some decisions of this nature necessarily be the teacher’s

alone? In a multi-year initiative such as ours, should certain decisions lay exclusively

with the teacher and any students who have been part of the process from its inception?

These questions, in turn, suggested additional concerns touching upon related but wider

aspects of our global citizenship community and the nature of the teacher-students

relationship that grounds it. Whose interests should be served and how? Under what

conditions and to what extent should a teacher attempt to assert her own interests or

agenda? How should a global citizenship community determine its shared values,

dispositions, mission, norms, and practices? How should the power that necessarily

devolves onto the lone adult member of such a community, the teacher-facilitator, be

mediated to maximize the voice and power of participating youth?

The conversation and questions cited above also tapped into my growing

conviction that the core values and beliefs adopted by people to motivate and justify their

ethical, social, economic, and political actions are fostered to a significant degree by the

beliefs, values, practices, and norms of the culture in which these views are formed and

nurtured. This, in turn, led to my belief that culture plays a central role—perhaps the

central role—in the formation of ethical, social, and political sensibilities and

dispositions. This analysis suggested to me that one of my primary responsibilities as the

teacher-facilitator for a global citizenship action-learning initiative conducted with middle

school youth is to develop and articulate, in collaboration with my students, the values,

dispositions, norms, and practices best conducive to the promotion of an effective global

citizenship community.

Taken collectively, the preceding reflection and questions helped to crystallize an

overarching analytical focus for this dissertation: What type of teacher-students

relationship and culture would best nurture the development of global citizenship

dispositions, youth voice, and empowerment within the context of our global citizenship

community?

My resolution of the preceding questions did not represent merely an academic

exercise; rather, these issues tied directly to the first major decision our global citizenship

community—the SMS Global Care Club—would have to make: whether or not to

continue our action-learning focus on supporting and sponsoring EAFS. A strong part of

me felt that while we had accomplished a great deal over the previous two years of this

initiative—having raised roughly $80,000 to sponsor construction of a 12-classroom

block for Pre-K to Grade eight, as well as the purchase of a school bus—we needed to do

more. Based on ongoing discussions with our Ethiopian action-learning partner, Tessema

Alemu, I had internalized a goal of sponsoring construction of one more wing of four to

six rooms to enable students attending EAFS to complete Grade 10 and obtain the

Ethiopian equivalent of a high school diploma. Wouldn’t failure to persevere towards

completion of this objective represent abandonment of an implicit commitment the

students and I had made to empower the EAFS students to complete their secondary

school education?

However, if I merely imposed or announced this objective for the new academic

year, without consultation with the current club members—most of whom were new to

the club—what would this indicate about the culture of the global citizenship community

I was trying to cultivate? What would such an action reveal about the level of student

voice and ownership I hoped to encourage or about the students’ role in the

decisionmaking processes within our global citizenship community?

To highlight this dilemma, none of the current middle school club members had

been present during the 2006-07 academic year when the club had decided, after a full

year of research and debate, to partner with Mr. Alemu on our Ethiopian school

construction project. Further, only our three eighth graders (Bethany, Huan, and Sean)

had been club members during our project kickoff year in 2007-2008. By sharp contrast,

as of the third meeting of the current academic year, 53 students—44 sixth graders and

nine seventh graders—were currently involved in the club for the first time. (That

number would drop significantly, as expected, once the upcoming research phase was

initiated.)

In summary, the question of whether or not to continue our focus on school

construction in Ethiopia distilled, for me, into the following questions. First, would it be

fair to require or mandate that students involved with the Global Care club this year—in

particular, new club members—participate in an initiative or address a global problem

(access to quality primary and secondary school education) not of their choosing? To

what extent should a teacher be guided by the momentum and interests of his current

student members as opposed to promoting or defending an agenda developed by and

inherited from previous students? Further, what would be a way of resolving this issue

that embodied the type of global citizenship culture and community I wished to cultivate?

Episode Two

10/12/09 – “The Seed That Grows Throughout Life” - Students’ Views of the Value

of Education

My recognition of the complexity of the issues and questions surrounding the

impending decision of whether or not to continue our current action-learning initiative

had a direct impact on the agenda of our fourth club meeting on October 12th. After using

the first three meetings to engage the students in activities and discussion aimed at

introducing them broadly to the concept of global citizenship, I used the fourth club

meeting to introduce an “essential” question aimed at eliciting student brainstorming and

reflection regarding the critical importance of education in empowering all people to

recognize and achieve their potential.

Specifically, I posted on the white board the following question: “What is the

value of education in enabling people to thrive?” I justified the introduction of this

question by placing it within the larger context of our current research focus on access to

education in Sub-Saharan Africa embedded in our current Ethiopian School Construction

Initiative. In this way, I hoped students would be able to draw upon these reflections

when I did decide to broach the issue of project focus and decision-making.

The attending students provided a number of thoughtful written “splash”

responses to my focus question that suggested a wide range of motivations and benefits of

school attendance. (I use the term “splash” to refer to having students share their

opinions by writing simultaneously on my chalkboard and white board.) Among these

responses, the practical application of knowledge for professional self-advancement and

the other-focused use of knowledge to practice global citizenship vied for supremacy.

Self-oriented responses focused on obtaining the practical knowledge and skills

necessary for future employment, economic security, and expansion of one’s own life

opportunities. Statements such as, “(G)etting education makes more options of jobs in

the future” and “(E)ducation enables you to survive by yourself” articulated the emphasis

on future employment and security, while the broadening of opportunities was captured

by statements such as, “(E)ducation gives you more life options.”

The other-focused orientation emerged, as well, through postings that conceived

of education as a pathway for making a positive difference in the world by helping and

educating others. Interestingly, these students did not distinguish between such

selffocused and other-focused interests in education; rather, they asserted that the former

enabled the latter. For one student, this linkage followed a linear path: “Education helps

you have a job . . . then you can help others. . . . Doctors save lives.” By contrast, the

handful of other students who shared this perspective articulated this linkage in ways that

were not sequential, but concurrent. Thus, for one sixth grader, “Education allows

people, like us, (to) educate others and ourselves about world problems.” Or, as another

sixth grader, Malka, wrote, “Education gives us the power to help ourselves and others.”

This conception of education as cultivating the voice and empowerment of both self and,

by extension, others—potentially including distant, non-intimate others— throughout the

educative process, as well as the notion that, for global citizens, education constitutes a

lifelong commitment apart from the external demands of coursework and degrees, reflects

the conception of education that I hoped to nurture and cultivate within my students.

Thus, in a real sense, the denial of access to quality education restricts not only the voice

and empowerment of the deprived child, but the capacity of that child to participate in the

global citizenship practice of empowering others.

This sense that education, like dignity or life itself, holds within it both

potentiality and vulnerability was poignantly addressed by Anandani, a seventh grade

student who had been a club member the previous year: “Education is the seed that

grows throughout life. You are born with the seed(,) and if you water it and take care of

it, it grows, but if you don’t, it remains a seed and just a seed.” Or, put succinctly by

Huan, “Education gives people hope.”

Thus, a systemic denial of education, i.e., the failure to create sustainable societal

institutions supportive of universal education, is the nursery of the de-voiced, the defaced,

the disempowered and the hopeless. Global citizens must find this condition ethically,

socially, and politically intolerable; it appeared from their comments that my students

shared that sense of moral outrage. Consequently, this affirmation by my students of the

importance of education to human dignity and potential established the ethical legitimacy

for my proceeding to introduce the question regarding the continuance of our current

action-learning initiative.

Episode Three

10/16/09 – “We’re Not Done in Ethiopia” – The Decision to Continue with Our

Current Action-Learning Initiative

After using the fifth club meeting to share my experiences and photos from my

visit to Ethiopia and our sponsored school, EAFS, in December 2008/January 2009, I felt

the students would be sufficiently knowledgeable regarding our action-learning initiative

to use the ensuing club meeting to participate in the decision-making process regarding

its continuance. I hoped that the preceding couple of meetings had provided my students

with sufficient awareness and understanding of our current initiative to offer their

enthusiastic support for its continuance. Indeed, their responses to our discussion about

the value of education as described in Episode Two and my subsequent sharing of my

visit to Ethiopia and EAFS, gave me confidence regarding the outcome of our decision.

But, from a standpoint of promoting youth voice and empowerment, I felt it was critical

that I broach this issue as a question requiring student feedback, reflection, and approval

to justify proceeding with this initiative, as opposed to initiating a new one. However, I

was not clear how I would react if the students surprised me and expressed a desire to

begin an alternative project.

Before addressing this issue, I wanted the students to hear their responses

regarding the value of education as outlined in Episode Two. So, I projected the students’

splash reflections on the overhead television screen under several headings—

Nurturing Human Potential, Awareness of Global Problems, Making a Difference,

Knowledge & Decision-Making, Future Employment/Success, Expands Life

Choices/Options, Helping Others, and Hope—and read their reflections aloud. I then

stated the decision that had to be made, explained my reasons for wanting to continue our

focus on EAFS, and told the students I needed them to splash their opinions on the matter.

Specifically, I offered three central arguments for its continuance. First, I

reinforced my staunch agreement with the students’ own stance regarding the critical

value of education, as indicated by their own splash comments from the club’s fourth

meeting. Secondly, I reminded the students of the implicit commitment our club had

made over the course of the preceding two years of this initiative to try to sponsor the

construction of classrooms through the high school level in order to provide the attending

Ethiopian students with a single site at which they could obtain their high school diploma.

Lastly, I stated that one of the core benefits of sponsoring this school was that it enabled

the students from both SMS and EAFS to develop connections via pen-pal

correspondence and, hopefully, via videoconferencing.

Ultimately, then, my pedagogical decisions framed the decision to my students as

one in which I carried a strong vested interest in its continuance. Therefore, in reality, I

was asking my students whether or not they supported my stance of wanting to continue

this initiative.

The students’ splash responses were universally enthusiastic and insistent

regarding their wish to continue our focus. In expressing their perspective, the students

cited three core reasons that mirrored those I had offered just before they had posted their

responses: the desire to encourage the capabilities and potential of the EAFS students,

the ethical obligation to honor our commitment to complete the task of supporting

construction of a high school at EAFS, and the importance of sustaining and promoting

our student-to-student connection.

The importance of nurturing the capabilities of the EAFS students was implied by

a student who proclaimed that “(i)t seems a shame that students have to stop learning in

Grade 8.” Another student cited the importance of supporting the aspirations of the

EAFS students more concretely by asserting, “(i)f some of the kids want to go to college,

we should help them all the way.”

The students expressed their sense of ethical obligation and commitment through

their use of linguistic imperatives such as: “We still need to continue”; “We made a

commitment to them (the students of EAFS) and we can’t let them down”; “We can’t just

stop out of nowhere”; and “We are not done!” For Anandani, the author of this latter

assertion, the need to continue encompassed more than the sponsorship of the physical

structure of the classrooms: “(w)e still need to get them better supplies and better ways to

study. We need . . . computers, more textbooks, art paper, markers. We also need good

lights (electricity) in the school.”

Lastly, sixth grader, Rachel, reminded us that our perceived obligation and

commitment to complete our goal of sponsoring a high school wing and, through this, to

cultivate the potential of the EAFS students, was grounded in our burgeoning relationship

with these students, as initiated by the previous year’s pen-pal exchange. Rachel asserted

this position by insisting that “(W)e must keep our connection with the Ethiopian kids.”

The students’ clarity and passion in voicing their unqualified and unanimous support for

continuing our Ethiopian School Construction Initiative, based on their sense of ethical

obligation and interpersonal connection toward the EAFS students, alleviated my

lingering concerns about the issue of our action/service focus and the process by which

we had selected it. I was particularly heartened by the sense of project ownership for this

multi-year initiative expressed by students who had only begun attending our club for the

first time during the prior two weeks. Indeed, if one accepted the students’ support as

authentic and not unduly influenced by my own statement of preference, one could

discern a hint of their recognition of the primacy of establishing intersubjective ethical

relations in response to the call of the other, as embodied in the students of EAFS.

Critique of Critical Incident One

Probing Question One

What did the actions of this critical incident reveal about the nature of our

teacherstudents pedagogical relationship and culture? To what extent, if any, did

the pedagogical relationship/culture showcase youth voice and/or empowerment?

This critical incident revealed a clear tension within me between the practice of a

traditional/hierarchical teacher-students relationship and my desire to nurture a more

collaborative and empowering relationship featuring teacher transparency and

emphasizing opportunities for the authentic expression of youth interests, voice, and

empowerment in the areas of curriculum, agenda-setting, epistemology, and

decisionmaking. In retrospect, it appears that my resolution to this quandary was to foster

active youth participation and ownership in the epistemological process in which we

conducted our search for knowledge and “truth” within our club discussions, while

maintaining my complete grip on the curriculum and agenda, i.e., the issues, questions,

and content to be discussed and processed. A review of the six club meetings used to

reach a decision regarding the continuation of our current initiative reveals that students

were given ample opportunity to derive and articulate their own views and positions

regarding the topics I had introduced at each meeting—including the decision to continue

our current initiative—through the use of the splash technique described above and

through teacherstudents dialogue. However, control of the content of our curriculum and

agenda, as well as the order in which this content was introduced from meeting to

meeting, was within my strict purview. Indeed, these areas of teacher power and control

were reinforced unconsciously at each meeting in which I inhabited my role as teacher in

the way described above, with the implicit permission of my students. Thus, the wider

societal norms and conditions that promote teacher power vis-à-vis one’s students were

reenacted as part of the cultural practice of our global citizenship community.

The pedagogical process described above highlights the importance of examining

the notion of teacher transparency or visibility regarding both one’s relative power

advantage in relation to one’s students, as well as the degree to which one feels compelled

to share or withhold from one’s students significant areas of personal perspective,

opinion, or stance regarding matters that impact the community’s shared pedagogy and

action-learning initiative. In this case, my decision to hide my inner conflict and my

assumed power over curricular and agenda choices, as well as to refrain from sharing my

strong preference for continuation of our current action-learning initiative until the

meeting at which the students were asked to offer their stance regarding this decision,

deprived my students of authentic participation in a major decision impacting their

experience in our global citizenship community. Indeed, it is highly unlikely that I would

have accepted a decision by the students to demand the initiation of a new action-learning

initiative without offering an intense challenge to the wisdom of such a preference. Thus,

while student feedback affirming my stance was accepted by me with gratitude and relief,

an opposing student decision might not have been accepted as a decision at all; more

likely, it would have initiated one or more follow-up discussions before I might even

consider abandoning the current initiative.

Within the context of this critical incident, the complete control I maintained

regarding the curriculum, agenda, and decision-making process, coupled with my lack of

transparency regarding my interiority, revealed a clear traditional/hierarchical approach to

my relationship with the students at this beginning stage of our connection. What

accounts for my adoption of such a traditional teacher-students pedagogical relationship,

especially given my desire to encourage youth participation in our global citizenship

community? Several explanations seem likely.

Perhaps the most overriding explanation involves the depth of the personal

commitment I had developed to achieving the programmatic objective of sponsoring

construction of a high school wing at EAFS, as well as my linkage of the attainment of

this objective with the strengthening of the student-to-student relationship between our

club and EAFS. In one sense, I can argue that my commitment to the ethical

responsibility and relational connection between our global citizenship community and

EAFS foreshadowed the conviction I derived by the end of this study regarding the

foundational primacy of establishing intersubjective ethical relations between the

participants in an action-learning initiative. However, the strength of my desire to

succeed at sponsoring this last wing of classrooms testifies to the higher level of valuation

in which I held achievement of the practical objectives of our initiative over the less

tangible objectives of improving the collaborative aspects of our teacher-students

relationship.

Another incentive for maintaining teacher control over the curriculum and agenda

involved the lack of a strong teacher-students relationship at this beginning portion of the

school year. While it is true that there were a handful of returnees from the preceding

academic year, as well as three eighth grade students who had been involved in the club

since sixth grade, the bulk of the students attending the initial club meetings were sixth

grade newcomers. Additionally, as any middle school teacher can attest, the

developmental growth and changes that can occur within an early adolescent over the

summer separating academic years can influence a student’s priorities, attitudes, and

values from one year to the next. Consequently, for a middle school teacher-facilitator,

each new academic year always requires adjustments in the teacher-student relationship.

Thus, despite the presence of student-returnees to the club, a sense of mutual trust and

connection was still necessary to develop.

To review, it would appear that the real tension I faced in this critical incident

involved how to foster development of a culture indicative of a global citizenship

community, while concurrently controlling the curriculum and agenda of our club

meetings to such a degree as to virtually assure the concurrence of my students with my

own preference towards continuation of the Ethiopian initiative. I seemed to have two

parallel objectives that did not allow for intersection; I could either nurture youth

interests, voice, and empowerment, and risk that they might use their empowerment to

nix my preferred resolution to the issue of continuing our current initiative, or I could

maintain sufficient control over the curriculum to foster the high likelihood of my

students’ concurrence with my position.

This “either/or” perspective on my part forestalled my capacity to recognize

alternative ways of addressing this conflict in a more transparent way that might have

honored both my desire to continue our initiative and my presumed belief in nurturing the

voice and empowerment of my students. In retrospect, the following alternative scenarios

may have accomplished a more “both/and” approach to this dilemma. One approach

might have involved sharing the above conflict and asking my students to consider the

following two questions: “Who should rightfully participate in making the decision of

whether or not to continue our current initiative?” and “What process should we use to

make this decision?” These questions would have encouraged an airing out of our

respective views and concerns, while concurrently inviting shared responsibility

regarding both the decision-making process and the consequences of that decision. Of

course, a significant role and opportunity for youth voice and empowerment in such a

process would be assumed. This type of process would truly honor a commitment to

nurturing youth voice and empowerment that I believe is foundational to the nurturance

of global citizenship dispositions in youth participants and of a constructive global

citizenship community culture.

Alternatively, I could have handled this conflict by being open with my students

regarding this conflict and informing them of my decision to continue this initiative, as

well as the supporting reasons for this decision. My ethical rationale for making this

unilateral decision would revolve around the access I had—given my intimate

involvement in the formation and implementation of this initiative since its inception in

spring 2006—to a deeper and wider understanding of the background, purposes, and

direction of our current initiative and that my unique role as teacher, facilitator, and

guardian of this initiative warranted my ethical power to make this decision. While such

an approach would deny the voice and empowerment of my students to influence my

decision, it would presumably open up a dialogue regarding the critical issue of the

appropriate uses of power regarding all aspects of our global citizenship community.

Further, I would hope that sharing my inner conflict and rationale for my decision would

model a level of teacher transparency vis-à-vis my students that would lead to a greater

sense of mutual understanding and trust.

In conclusion, my analysis of Critical Incident One reveals an inner conflict

between the values that I claimed to believe regarding the promotion of student voice and

empowerment as prospective global citizenship practitioners and my desire to achieve a

particular result: in this case, student support for continuation of the Ethiopian School

Construction Initiative. In fact, it would appear that, at the time of Critical Incident One,

I valued attainment of a particular objective—funding a high school wing for EAFS—

over facilitation of a truly empowering pedagogical process for my students. As

described above, the power inequity I enjoyed vis-à-vis my students enabled me to

achieve my desired outcome without external conflict. However, as I became more aware

of the potentially corrosive nature of such implicit teacher-student power relations, I

eventually began to find ways of challenging the nature of this relationship: ways that

would use my status and power in a more collaborative and equitable manner with the

students.

Probing Question Two

What global citizenship dispositions were promoted and/or expressed by this critical

incident?

Encompassing aspects of the first six club meetings of the academic year, this

critical incident occurs too early in the study to facilitate the development of significant

understanding or linkages between the types of global citizenship dispositions discussed

in Chapter Two above. Consequently, regarding global citizenship dispositions, these

meetings served primarily to raise and elicit an initial suggestion of such dispositions.

Nevertheless, the opportunities for student voice during the splash activities and followup

discussions provided evidence of the students’ awareness of a range of global citizenship

dispositions.

The most obvious dispositions articulated by my students included the promotion

of human capabilities and their desire to offer compassionate intervention to address the

human needs of suffering others: in this case, the educational needs of the EAFS

students. My students’ concern for nurturing the educational capabilities of the EAFS

students also infers an awareness of education as a fundamental human need, the denial

of which violates the sufferer’s dignity and right to justice, thereby triggering empathy

and empathic extension for those suffering from this denial. In addition, as stated above,

several students linked the attainment of satisfactory education as a necessary source of

empowerment for promoting the future global citizenship practice of the EAFS students.

Further, Rachel’s assertion above regarding the importance of connecting with the

EAFS students suggests at least a tacit recognition that such interconnections contained

an implicit ethical responsibility between the parties. That is, the burgeoning

interdependence and interconnection fostered by promoting ongoing awareness of the

subjectivity of both sets of students, i.e., awareness of the unique cultural, racial, ethnic,

and experiential components of each of the student groups, as well as of their individual

preferences, needs, and personalities, necessarily elevates the ethical component of the

parties towards one another—a global citizenship disposition and process I refer to as

intersubjective ethical relations in my discussion of my global ethic above.

Critical Incident Two: Values Conflict Between Youth Empowerment and Task

Completion

Background

After making the decision to continue with the Ethiopian School Construction

Initiative as our action-learning focus, the next task of our community was to enhance the

students’ awareness and understanding of the central global problem addressed by our

initiative: the lack of access to quality education faced by millions of school age

children. To this end, in early November I had introduced a documentary video series

called Time for School which profiled the obstacles encountered by children from

different countries and continents attending school over a six year time period. I had also

introduced the students to the “Citizens of the World” website I had just created that they

would be using to post their research findings and reflections.

After several weeks of this task, I deemed the students ready to engage in research

regarding topics related to the above global problem. Our collective goal—agreed upon

through collaborative discussion in earlier meetings—was to create an educational

presentation about the global problem of access to education and our own action-learning

initiative to audiences both in school and in the local community. The intended format

for our presentation would be a “gallery tour,” whereby attendees toured each of the

students’ educational products simultaneously. At this initial stage, this commitment to

research meant that each member, independently or with partners, needed to identify a

research topic, conduct sufficient research on that topic, and develop an educational

product as a way of sharing this newfound global citizenship knowledge with others.

Given this new focus on research, the format and purpose of the club meetings

took on a new pedagogical structure that conformed to the students’ needs. This involved

providing mini-lessons as well as brief whole-club meetings, chats, and pep-talks as

needed; but primarily, this workshop structure involved students conducting research and

product creation, while I conducted ongoing teacher-student conferencing.

I knew that the tasks outlined above would require a substantial commitment of

time and effort on the part of the students to ensure completion of quality educational

products in a timely fashion. Indeed, the pressure to succeed at this task was significantly

heightened by a commitment I had made on behalf of the club to deliver six educational

presentations over the course of a single school day encompassing the entire student

body. Since this event would occur on January 15th, the club and I had about two months

to complete our research, create educational products, and organize these into a

presentation.

Unfortunately, over the next three plus weeks, the students and I came to realize

that not enough of the students would be ready to present completed educational products

by the January 15th presentation date that I had arranged. Compounding the urgency of

this situation, our club had been given a truly extraordinary opportunity to profile our

campaign and achieve our funding objectives: thanks to the remarkable efforts of a local

Sunrise citizen, the global sports icon, Earvin “Magic” Johnson, had agreed to visit

Sunrise on January 24th—a mere nine days after our January 15th school presentation date

—to support our action-learning initiative. Clearly, it was imperative that our club be

prepared with its presentation for use on each of these dates.

To resolve this problem, the students and I had collaborated over several club

meetings to clarify and revise the manner of our research, as well as the format and

content of our educational presentation. Ultimately, we decided to create a whole-club

multimedia presentation format including statistics, children’s rights articles, and student

reflections. This format would enable my club to present to audiences of any size.

Further, since the presentation would be scripted and uniform for each delivery, it would

not be necessary for every club member to participate in each of the presentations; as

long as we had at least a handful of club members attending a given presentation, we

could deliver it.

Regarding content, we decided to broaden the scope of our research to encompass

a handful of global problems impacting children’s capacity to attend school, with

particular attention to the following global problems: war, child exploitation, access to

education, health/disease, and poverty.

To support this research, we also agreed to organize working groups whose

responsibilities would be to collectively research one of the global problems listed above

and to post their findings and reflections on our website. Student feedback universally

supported the idea of forming such working groups, as it helped to streamline and focus

their research and added an extra cushion of support from peers within their groups.

Episode One

(12/18/09 – “I need you to demonstrate a commitment here!” – Teacher Appeal

For the fourth time in the past month—and in the sternest terms yet—I challenged

and admonished the club members to recognize their responsibility to engage in research

and writing to assist in the development of our whole-club presentation. This challenge

was not planned; it emerged organically after I had provided the students with the official

news of the January 24th “Magic” Johnson event and the rough event outline (including a

benefit fundraiser and a basketball game) and told them of their opportunity to do a

presentation for Mr. Johnson.

Initially, I introduced the presentation topic as a “golden opportunity” to tell Mr.

Johnson about our initiative and to communicate the capacity of youth to be global

citizens. I stated:

You are going to have the opportunity to meet with “Magic” as a group. I

consider this the most important part of the entire evening. We need to

share a presentation with him that inspires him to recognize the power of

your voices as evolving youth global citizens. If you can do that, Magic

will be able to communicate your passion to the whole assembled audience

when he addresses them at the basketball event and the benefit fundraiser.

But, we have to do more than just say, ‘we want to help people.’ We need

to exhibit real knowledge about global citizenship topics.

Then, I reviewed the steps we had taken as club to that point to organize a

presentation as outlined above and asked the students what they wanted to do with this

opportunity. Huan suggested we create a simplified version of our whole-club

multimedia presentation—a reading of student reflections accompanied by a

photographic slide show—like the one she had participated in at a club event the previous

year. While her idea was reasonable given the limited time now available, I was upset by

her justification for this idea—that “it would not be too hard”—and used this to segue to

addressing my increasing concerns regarding my perception of the students’ overall lack

of task commitment.

I immediately responded, “Yes, we should include student reflections, but we

should not be doing something because it is not too hard! We should be willing to do

some hard work.” I then proceeded:

It’s not enough to have a talent or to have knowledge about something. To

make a difference, to be a global citizen, you have to find a way to summon

your talent or knowledge, to create something, to share something, to express

something to someone else. It’s that outward act of connecting and sharing

that makes you a global citizen. And I have to admit that I have been

frustrated with the lack of work that you guys have put in outside of club

meeting time. I know there are a few of you that have made this effort. But

you have to understand that the time we spend at meetings is not enough to

do what we are talking about. You can’t just come to one or two meetings a

week and say to yourself, “I’ve done my part; I’m a global citizen.” This is

not that type of club. Now don’t get me wrong; I honor the time you invest to

meet with this bald guy (student laughter) on your own time. But to be a

global citizen, to make a difference, a greater investment is required. You

know I’ll be there every step of the way!

I then went to my computer, clicked on our website, and stated, “I need you guys

to really do something between now and the next time we meet!” I then reviewed the

various links on my website to help them in their research.

However, as the meeting time wound down, and I reviewed what each of the

working groups had done or, in most cases, failed to do, my tone and words became even

more challenging, pleading, and personal:

“Huan! You’re an 8th grader. You’ve been in the club for 3 years! You said

you would do some research on health and children. Come on! Let’s kick

some ‘you know what’ and get you and your group moving! Sean, come on! I

don’t see any writing on your working group page! You’ve got strong people

in your group! Come on! Let’s go! Lan, Rachel, let’s go! Anandani, you’re

like a one woman wrecking crew! You’re doing great. But where are the

contributions from your partners!”

At this point, I realized that I was losing some control: that the students were

seeing a raw side of me. So, I tried to reign myself in and conclude on a more positive

note:

Guys, this is actually the opposite of what I intended to do today! Here we

have incredible news about Magic Johnson coming to Sunrise, and I’m scold-

ing you guys. I am feeling a little raw right now. I’ve been working hard on

the club. I love it, but it is time-consuming. I need you guys to come through!

I need you to show “Magic” Johnson the power of middle school youth. You

see, non-teachers don’t understand the power of youth voices, your power to

understand important global issues and problems. I need you to demonstrate a

commitment here! Can you do it! Will you invest some time between this

moment and next Monday or Wednesday? The next time I see you I need

you to come in having researched and written something! Can you do it?

Will you do it?

The students seemed to take my appeal and scolding in the heartfelt, blunt, but

constructive vein I had intended. It remained to see which students, if any, would come

through. As always, I entered this latest round of “tough love” with hopeful optimism.

Episode Two

1/13/10 – “We have been voiced!” - Student Reflections about Global Citizenship and

Youth Empowerment

Whether it was my “tough love” appeals described above, the reality of our

impending presentation dates, or some combination of the two, over the next several

weeks, the students’ began to post information and reflections regarding their global

problems working group research. However, by Wednesday, January 11th—just four days

removed from our whole-club presentations to the entire SMS student body—I realized

that insufficient time remained to cull the most pertinent information and student

reflections from within their working groups and to organize that data into a coherent

student presentation.

The need for an urgent remedy to this problem caused me to present the students

with a final, last-ditch presentation format that I hoped would resolve the issue while

accentuating the power of my students’ voices as global citizenship practitioners.

Specifically, I proposed incorporating the club members’ more generic reflections about

global citizenship—that is, their sense of deep compassion for distant, non-intimate

others and their belief in their voices and capacity to change the world—alongside

excerpted passages from the letters of EAFS students with whom we had engaged in

penpal exchanges the previous year. The plan was for my students to stand on two lines

delivering excerpts from these two sources of youth voice—reflections and letters—while

accompanied by a video montage showcasing Ethiopia, the construction of the first block

of classrooms at EAFS, and images of its students. To this end, I posted four questions

on my website for the students to reflect upon in their online journal pages and urged the

students to respond to as many of them as possible, while I reviewed the EAFS pen-pal

letters to identify useful excerpts for their presentation.

Each of my questions was intended to elicit a different aspect of global citizenship

practice about which I hoped my students could articulate some connections. The first

question—“What is a global citizen?”—encouraged an exploration of the global ethic,

practices, and character traits emblematic of a practicing global citizen. My second

reflection question—“Why are you committed to helping children halfway around the

world?”—required the club members to consider and justify their capacity to engage in

deep compassion for distant, non-intimate others and their motivations for doing so. The

third prompt question—“Why should people take your commitment seriously?”—

intended to focus the respondents primarily on responding to the anticipated skepticism of

non-club members with regards to their status as aspiring youth global citizens. Lastly,

my fourth prompt question regarding youth empowerment—“Do youth have the power to

change or improve the world?”—aimed at eliciting the students’ self-conceptions

regarding their capabilities as global citizen practitioners.

My students’ responses revealed a strong capacity for introspection and

conceptual thinking. Especially pertinent to my study, their responses revealed powerful

feelings and thoughts regarding their own sense of empowerment as global citizens, as

well as a capacity to identify specific global citizenship dispositions motivating their

global citizenship practice.

The students’ self-perception as empowered global citizenship practitioners,

including their capacity to effectively advocate for constructive intervention regarding

global problems, was evident in their written responses to the above reflection prompts.

For example, Both Huan and Anandani flatly dismissed the notion that effective global

citizenship practice can only be conducted by adults. For Huan, the evaluative tool for

global citizenship practice was sincerity of motive and dedication: “(A)nyone who makes

the effort can benefit the world. You don't have to be an adult. All you have to do is

purely want to help and to give your time.” Anandani clearly supported Huan’s

conviction by asserting that “(I)t doesn(’)t really matter what age you are, you can always

help the world.” However, Anandani added an important proviso that pointed to her

realization of the necessity of engaging in global citizenship practice via participation in a

global citizenship community of like-minded youth:

Sometimes youth may have to work together to get something done because

they can't always work alone. But that's pretty much what GCU (Global Care

Unlimited) is, right? GCU is made up of many children/people working

together to accomplish something. Right now, we are trying to raise money for

the Ethiopian school so that the children and teachers there can have

electricity, transportation, etc. We are helping the world, and we are children.

Vanessa offered the most extensive articulation of the capacity of youth for

selfeducation and their subsequent ability to utilize this education to effectively raise

public awareness and inspire action to address global problems: “We have fresh new

minds ready to be filled with knowledge and wisdom. We are more open to new

information and are ready to be inspired by the amazing other people in this world.”

Vanessa encapsulated the connection between education, advocacy, and action as

follows: We are in the process of being educated on a topic that relates to children

around the world. We then educate others . . . and spread the word. By doing this

simple act, we are changing the world as we know it. I bet that we have inspired at

least 1 person to care about what we were teaching them about or that 1 person would

think differently. That's how we change the world.

Lastly, several students cited the power of their global citizenship voices and their

desire to express them as the source of their capacity to inspire action. This connection

was expressed both in the unadorned language of Huan—“We all have voices and we

want to change the world”—and the effusive tone of a six grade club member—“(w)e

have a powerful voice…and we want everyone to hear it.” Perhaps the most joyous

expression of the power of youth voice was expressed in the following way by one of my

seventh grade club members:

(w)e’re really, actually making a difference in someone else’s life. I never

thought that I could be apart (sic) of something this huge. It’s exhilarating...

Us (We) kids who have grown together are part of something across the ocean.

We have been voiced (!)

The students’ written responses to the above prompt questions also provided

surprising and, for me, uplifting evidence of the degree to which they claimed to have

been influenced by many of the global citizenship dispositions I discussed in Chapter

Two. Among the dispositions either directly cited or strongly implied by my students

were: the dispositions of deep compassion (empathy, empathic extension and

compassion) for distant, non-intimate, suffering others; human capabilities; human needs;

human rights; justice; and interconnection/interdependence.

The experience of empathy or caring for distant, non-intimate others expressed by

a handful of students suggested a capacity for empathic extension and deep compassion.

For Lan, the motivation of caring was stated in straightforward, affective language: “I

really care for these people who are out there.” Malka expressed this view implicitly by

writing that global citizens “care for everyone” and “help as many people as they can,”

while Gillian posited this view explicitly by asserting that global citizens “(help) people,

not just people they know.” Rachel’s empathic extension was couched in a cognitive

assessment of the consequences of refusing to care: “If we do not care for each other,

then we can count the human race finished.” Gillian further explained her caring and

commitment to distant, non-intimate others as grounded in an integration of both affective

and cognitive motivations linked to empathy and anticipatory guilt such as that cited by

Hoffman (2000) above: “(t)he thought of how I would feel if I knew something was going

on, informed myself about it, thought about helping out, and decided against it would be

too hard. I couldn't do it, especially if other people around me were. Really, you just

care.”

In addition, several students specifically posited a sense of global community for

which global citizens should feel responsible. Thus, for Huan, a global citizen “tries to

help the world as a community.” Xavier was explicit about the expansion of his own

conception of his lens of concern since the beginning of the school year from his

geographic community to a broader global community:

When I started school in September my definition of a global citizen was a

Lot smaller(.) (i) thought it meant being a good citizen but just in your own

community (.) I didn't realize how broad it was and that you can also be a

good citizen to people you have never met.

It is important to note that, for these students, caring for others included concern

and action taken on behalf of people in our immediate or local communities. Thus, for

Cynthia and Anandani, assisting one’s classmate or friends constituted one form of global

citizenship practice. Additionally, such assistance need not address enormous problems;

rather, as Cynthia asserted, they can involve interventions “as simple as helping a

classmate with books” or, for Anandani, “mak(ing) a change in the world…in the smallest

way.”

Expression of the linked global citizenship dispositions of human capabilities,

needs, rights, and justice was also featured among the students’ reflections. For example,

Xavier connected his burgeoning awareness of global problems with the necessity to

empower the human potential to practice global citizenship in addressing these problems:

When I heard about Global Care it was like a magnet and I was drawn to

it(.) I didn’t know what you do there but I knew it was to help people.

When I came I learned all about the school in Ethiopia and the history of Global

Care, about all the situations around the world(,) about H.I.V., land- mines,

hunger, malnutrition, wars, child slavery, etc. That’s why I want to help(.) (s)o

if a kid halfway around the world wants to be a doctor he can overcome those

barriers and follow his dreams(.) (s)o he can reach his full potential.

Vanessa articulated her concerns about promoting human capabilities and

potential with the metaphoric language of hope and possibility:

Being in Global Care isn't just about raising some money for the school(.)

(i)t(’)s about giving these kids the ability to dream(,) (T)he chance to be able to

think the things they may not have been able to do before. I'm not just helping

a school in Ethiopia(;) I'm helping build a dream.

Addressing human needs was cited by several students as a motivator for global

citizenship practice. For example, Lan declared, “I am committed (sic) to help the people

who do not have what they need, like for example, an education.” For Gillian, “help(ing)

someone in need” produces an “amazing” inner feeling, presumably akin to the empathic

component of deep compassion cited above.

Some students articulated the conceptual link between human needs and rights.

Thus, for Xavier, global citizens “have to be able to address all human rights and needs.”

Cynthia offered an implied argument for justice by linking human capabilities, human

needs, and human rights as ethical prerequisites for human dignity:

I feel very compelled to care about these kids halfway around the world.

Because of the fact that I have full acess (sic) to an education, I feel very

strongly about getting it to other children. When you listen to their thoughts

and goals, they are no different from ours(:) (P)ilots, leaders, and all the

other things that we have in mind for our future. So why should we have

acess (sic) to these goals and not them? By getting them an education, they

have as much of a chance as we do. That(’)s where we come in. We need to

help these kids have exacly (sic) what they need, so they can fufill (sic) these

goals.

Lastly, two students offered reflections that supported the disposition of global

interdependence and interconnection. First, Rachel connected human needs to global

interdependence and interconnection:

One cannot exist in this world without existing with others…When one is in

need, we must help them. Then, when we ourselves are in need, they will help us.

This way, we will always have a shoulder to lean on.

Rachel’s use of the imagery of friendship connects directly to Malka’s assertion

that making a “friendship between people who have never met” was an important

motivator for her global citizenship practice. Indeed, these allusions to connection made

by Rachel and Malka indicate a burgeoning awareness of the disposition of

intersubjective ethical relations that foreshadows the emphasis the students and I would

come to place on establishing relations of collaboration and reciprocity between our

global citizenship community and the teachers and students of EAFS.

Critique of Critical Incident Two

Probing Question One

What did the actions of this critical incident reveal about the nature of our

teacherstudents pedagogical relationship and culture? To what extent, if any, did

the pedagogical relationship/culture showcase youth voice and/or empowerment?

In some important ways, this critical incident reveals evidence of conscious efforts

on my part to address problems I had discerned in our teacher-students relationship in the

first critical incident. I attempted to make my conflicts, my reactions, and my positions

as transparent as possible. I also displayed flexibility through my willingness to discuss

and collaborate with my students regarding issues for which a traditional teacher might

well have assumed complete responsibility. For example, after establishing the

overarching research themes, I provided my students with a great deal of latitude to select

topics of interest within the context of these themes. Later, when circumstances revealed

the need for us to reconsider the research methods and presentation format and content

for our club presentation, I engaged the students in extensive dialogue that lead to a

revamping of each of these aspects of our research and presentation, as outlined in

Episode One. Finally, when it became imperative to once again reconsider the format and

content of our presentation, I offered the students a revised suggestion that met with their

approval, as shown in Episode Two.

This teacher visibility and flexibility in my relationship with my students

significantly diminished any aspects of hiddenness regarding curriculum, agenda, or

decision-making. All my positions and justifications were freely offered. While my

enthusiasm regarding some of my opinions may have caused some of my students to

refrain from offering rebuttals to them, the amount of discussion in which I engaged the

students on all matters of importance to our initiative testified to the sincerity of my

efforts to combat the tendency towards non-transparency I had shown in the first critical

incident.

It must be acknowledged, however, that accompanying my decision to be more

visible towards my students and open to their suggestions regarding areas directly

impacting their work as global citizenship practitioners was a level of bluntness on my

part that bordered on excessive. While I believe I offered positive or uplifting aspects to

my speeches/statements to the students, I clearly was not reluctant to express my

disappointment in the quality of their work and their overall commitment, as profiled in

Episode One.

This tension point regarding youth empowerment and commitment was

counterpoised against the programmatic necessity of meeting tangible deadlines for the

completion of our club’s presentation. Indeed, the exigencies surrounding the club’s

preparations for its presentations on January 15th to the entire SMS student body and on

January 24th at the “Magic” Johnson event created a necessary emphasis on meeting the

educational and fundraising aspects of our initiative. As preparation time ebbed away and

my realization of the students’ non-preparedness regarding their research became

obvious, the pressure to develop a viable alternative format for creation of our

presentation by the above deadlines co-mingled with my authentic desire to promote

youth empowerment to produce a perfect environment for blunt critique of student

progress.

Nevertheless, my critique of the students’ task commitment and sense of

ownership regarding the whole-club presentation apparently did not injure their

selfconceptions as empowered and capable global citizenship practitioners, as revealed

through their written reflections outlined in Episode Two. Indeed, in addition to proudly

proclaiming their capacity to “change the world” and asserting that they had been

“voiced,” several students specifically defended their task commitment. For example,

Vanessa described herself and her fellow club members as “extremely dedicated

students,” while Gillian cited the list of club accomplishments, past and present, as

evidence of their commitment.

Each of the preceding student quotes suggests a possible underlying reason for

this apparent discrepancy in perception between the students and me regarding their

capacities as global citizenship practitioners at this point in the study. One reason may

have involved a sincere difference of opinion or orientation regarding the level of

responsibility the students should share to ensure the completion of tasks necessary for

our presentation. For me, as I stated to the students emphatically in Episode One,

commitment and ownership was inextricably linked to task completion. Consequently, I

expected each student to offer as much time and energy as necessary to complete their

research and develop their educational products by the assigned due dates.

Conversely, it became apparent to me that, unlike with some of my previous

groups of Global Care Club students, these students almost universally defined the limits

of their commitment of time and energy strictly within the parameters of our morning

meeting times. Thus, my students likely defined dedication primarily in terms of their

attendance at the required club meetings. If so, this would account for the students’

seeming lack of a strong sense of ownership or responsibility for any tasks that could not

be completed within that time frame.

Alternatively, Gillian’s reference to the club’s tangible accomplishments in terms

of funds raised and people impacted by our action-learning initiatives suggests a possible

developmental need of early adolescents for a concrete or externally quantifiable

yardstick for measuring the impact of their accomplishments. However, such presumed

evidence of the students’ task commitment as global citizenship practitioners profiles a

growing tension that I began to feel regarding my own priorities and values as

teacherfacilitator of our global citizenship community. Whereas prior to this study I had

placed extraordinary value on the attainment of the tangible objectives of our action-

learning initiatives, the introspection and self-reflection required by this study had begun

a process of values reorientation regarding the emphasis I had hitherto placed on such

concrete measures to evaluate the relative success of our global citizenship community.

Indeed, this process of values reorientation on my part coincided with my

burgeoning awareness of the ways in which the relatively traditional pedagogical process

I had developed and utilized had oriented my students to adopt such a tangible, concrete

means of self-assessment regarding their status as global citizenship practitioners. Thus,

as I began to critique and revise my pedagogical orientation in the direction of a more

collaborative and equitable relationship with my students, student responsibility,

ownership, voice, and empowerment regarding both the process and outcomes of our

collective work increasingly became my new forms of assessing the quality of our global

citizenship community. That is, I was beginning to look for ways of integrating the

values involved in both pedagogical process and the fulfillment of tangible and

measurable outcomes related to our action-learning initiatives. However, at this point in

the study, I had not sufficiently reached a point of articulating such evolving expectations

and values to myself to be able to share them with the students.

Probing Question Two

What global citizenship dispositions were expressed by this critical incident?

The students’ written responses to my prompt questions in Episode Two revealed an

implicit level of awareness of a handful of ethical dispositions and principles underlying

our global citizenship practice. However, the language the students used to articulate this

awareness indicated that, for most of them, such awareness was still relatively

undeveloped. Consequently, as a reader and interpreter of the students’ reflections, it was

often necessary for me to extrapolate those principles and dispositions from certain

commonly used words or phrases.

For example, I phrases that included a reference to “caring” or “helping”

suggested to me an implicit if inchoate awareness or sensibility regarding my global

citizenship dispositions of empathy and compassion. Thus, Malka’s assertion that global

citizens should “care for everyone” and Gillian’s statement that caring should extend

beyond “just people they know” implies, for me, the disposition of empathic extension

toward distant, non-intimate, suffering others. Likewise, Rachel’s declaration that “(O)ne

cannot exist in this world without existing with others” suggests an implicit awareness of

the disposition of interdependence and interconnection; her assertion also implies a type

of ethical interdependence suggestive of the disposition of intersubjective ethical relations

between our community and the students at EAFS.

Similarly, the students’ awareness of possible linkages between global citizenship

dispositions or principles was often articulated in ways that required my interpretive

intervention. For example, Rachel’s insistence that a failure on the part of human beings

to “care for each other” would lead to our elimination as a species suggests a linkage

between the dispositions associated with deep compassion—empathy, empathic

extension, and compassion—and recognition of the interdependence of all life.

In some such instances, conceptual linkages included fairly obvious references to

global citizenship dispositions as well as more suggestive and implicit phrasing. For

example, Cynthia’s implicit linkage above of empathic extension, capabilities, human

needs, and human rights offers language that is explicit regarding global citizenship

dispositions, as well as phrasing that requires an interpretive reach on my part. Her

awareness of empathic extension is quite transparent through her assertion that she felt

“compelled to care about these kids halfway around the world.” Likewise, Cynthia’s

observation that the “thoughts and goals” of the EAFS students are “no different” than

those of herself and her peers strongly suggests the disposition of human capabilities.

However, Cynthia’s rhetorical question above regarding unequal access to the conditions

necessary for children to obtain an education and, in turn, to realize their goals, draws a

clear, if tacit, connection to the principles of human needs and human rights. Similarly,

Xavier’s reference to helping children “halfway around the world” to “realize (their)

potential” clearly indicates the global citizenship dispositions of empathic extension and

human capabilities.

Finally, some of the students’ responses used language sufficiently developed to

suggest an even clearer linkage to the type of articulation of global citizenship

dispositions I proposed in Chapter Two. Thus, Huan’s statement that global citizens try to

“help the world as a community” or Xavier’s realization “you can also be a good citizen

to people you have never met” reveals a more explicit awareness of the disposition of

empathic extension for which little interpretation on the reader’s part is necessary.

Likewise, Lan’s declaration of her commitment to “help the people who do not have what

they need,” Gillian’s reference to “help(ing) someone in need,” or Rachel’s insistence that

“when someone is in need we must help them” all speak directly to the principle of

human needs.

Viewed collectively, then, the students’ responses to my prompt questions

revealed a continuum of awareness and sensibility regarding global citizenship

dispositions ranging from incipient to fairly well-developed. Further, a handful of

students demonstrated a burgeoning capacity to draw conceptual linkages between such

dispositions.

Critical Incident Three: Student Disempowerment, Reexamination of the Values of

our Global Citizenship Community, and a Commitment to Foster a More

Collaborative and Equitable Teacher-Students Relationship

Background

To understand how the episodes in this critical incident unfolded, it is necessary

here to provide contextual background. These episodes were precipitated by the

opportunity cited above for a global celebrity icon, Earvin “Magic” Johnson, to make an

appearance in Sunrise on January 24th in support of our action-learning initiative.

Informed of Mr. Johnson’s imminent arrival via e-mail on December 15th by a local

Sunrise parent, Dana (who had sponsored and obtained Mr. Johnson’s availability), I met

with Dana and another local parent, Sandra, in my classroom on December 17th to begin

brainstorming the best possible use of Mr. Johnson’s visit. Following this meeting, I

informed the Global Care Club the next day of Mr. Johnson’s imminent arrival and of the

unprecedented opportunity this event posed for fundraising and promotion of our

initiative.

Once all the stakeholders involved in organizing for Mr. Johnson’s visit had been

notified, a series of planning meetings was arranged that included Dana, Sandra, and a

group of about 10 local parents and citizens. Hosted at the homes of Dana and Sandra, the

event planning committee met the evenings of December 22nd, January 5th,and January

7th; a final planning meeting was held the evening of January 21st at the Sunrise High

School gymnasium where we ultimately decided to host the first major event: an

Students also viewed