Towards a pedagogical framework for global citizenship education

Amidst growing recognition of the importance of the learning process within global citizenship education, this paper develops a pedagogical framework including dimensions of critical thinking, dialogue, reflection, and responsible being/action. It draws on a variety of critical literatures to identify characteristics of each of these dimensions. The second part of this paper begins to demonstrate how this framework might be used as an analytical approach in research and evaluation. It draws on observational examples from doctoral research in one English secondary school to identify aspects of critical thinking, dialogue, and reflection in practice, the strategies teachers use to foster these, and the challenges they may face. With development, the framework has potential for application in future research and evaluation into the complex teaching and learning processes involved in global citizenship education.


Introduction
With the launch of the new Sustainable Development Goals, discussions about global citizenship education have been high on the agenda.Global citizenship education (GCE) is one of a number of 'seemingly similar terms' (Marshall, 2007: 38) used by governments, non-governmental organizations such as Oxfam and Action Aid, and teachers and educators, to refer to teaching and learning about the wider world and our place within it.Many have argued that global citizenship education and related traditions of global learning, development education, and global education, have a crucial role to play in tackling injustices and making the world a more just and sustainable place.However, beyond that, there are ranging ideas about what global citizenship education is, how and where it should be taught and learned, who it is for, and what the aims and outcomes should be.
Many of these discussions are centring on the importance of the learning process within global citizenship education, moving away from 'softer' approaches that focus on campaigning to achieve predetermined behaviour change outcomes, towards more 'critical' approaches that emphasize critical thinking, dialogue, and reflection (Andreotti, 2006).Much of the inspiration can be linked back to Paolo Freire's (1996) notion of conscientization, in which learners are encouraged to question the political structures that underpin inequalities in power and wealth.Vanessa Andreotti's (2006) work in particular highlights the importance of students reflecting upon their own knowledge and assumptions, and exploring the implications of their own ways of seeing and being in the world in relation to power, relationships, and the distribution of labour and resources.This creates space for a plurality of perspectives rather than dictating what learners should do or think.Bourn (2015) points to the significance of pedagogy.For him, global citizenship education pedagogy consists of global outlook, recognition of power and inequality in the world, belief in social justice and equity, and a commitment to reflection, dialogue, and transformation.At the core, it is about how knowledge is constructed and what is done with it (Bourn, 2015;Brown, 2015 ;Andreotti, 2006).This is a complex process; one that is individual to each learner, depending on their experiences and understandings, and one that is likely to produce varied outcomes (Brown, 2015).
There is therefore further need to understand the learning process involved in global citizenship education.The first part of this paper proposes a clear pedagogical framework to further engage with the notion of critical global citizenship education through the dimensions of critical thinking, dialogue, reflection, and responsible being/action.Drawing on a variety of critical literatures, the paper proposes characteristics of each of these dimensions.The second part of this paper begins to demonstrate how this framework might be used as an analytical approach in research and evaluation.It draws on observational examples from doctoral research in one English secondary school to identify aspects of critical thinking, dialogue, and reflection in practice, the strategies teachers use to foster these, and the challenges they may face.With development, the framework has potential for application in future research and evaluation into the complex teaching and learning processes involved in global citizenship education.

Critical pedagogical framework
This section proposes a framework for critical global citizenship education pedagogy.It draws on a variety of authors who have contributed pertinent theories and concepts, and is inspired particularly by Vanessa Andreotti and Paulo Freire whose work has influenced many others in educational fields.The framework consists of four interrelated dimensions: critical thinking, dialogue, reflection, and responsible being/action as shown in Figure 1 below.These pedagogical approaches can be applied to a range of topics including those that are 'global' in scope (e.g.inequality, difference, environment, and conflict).The notion of 'global' employed in this paper is one that recognizes that 'the global' and 'the local' are co-produced (Massey, 2005).'Local' actions, interactions, and relations may therefore have 'global' ramifications.And issues such as inequality, difference, and conflict may be experienced in multiple 'localities' making them 'global' in interest and importance.In many ways scale is seen as being of less importance here and this framework could equally be applied to critical citizenship education at the local level.The remainder of this section elaborates on the theoretical underpinnings of each of the four dimensions of the framework.

Critical thinking
Critical thinking is an important part of a critical approach to global citizenship education.Critical thinking broadly means 'to think anew, to think differently' (Burbules and Beck, 1999: 59).There are two prevailing views and practices of critical thinking: technical and political (Burbules and Beck, 1999).These critical traditions share an assumption in reality, in something real, albeit a reality that is changeable.They also both require passion -passion for reason in the case of the technical tradition and passion for social justice in the political tradition.However, there are many differences between them.The technical tradition emphasizes technical skills such as the application of logic, conceptual analysis, and epistemological reflection.It is about identifying the evidentiary basis behind claims and strives for impartiality (Burbules and Beck, 1999).The political tradition, on the other hand, rejects impartiality and is concerned with the politics of truth content, and is influential within critical pedagogy and global citizenship education.
Drawing together these two traditions, Brookfield (2012) argues that critical thinking is about discovering what our assumptions are, and then assessing when, and how far, these assumptions are accurate.He identifies three types of assumption: paradigmatic -how we view the world; prescriptive -how we think the world should work and how people should behave; and causal -why things happen in the way they do (Brookfield, 2012).Engaging with assumptions involves technical skills such as the application of logic, conceptual analysis, and epistemological reflection (Burbules and Beck, 1999) but it is also about engaging with ideological questions.This is consistent with a broadly constructionist approach to knowledge (Bourn, 2011;Walkington, 2000), which recognizes that knowledge is situated, partial, and incomplete (Andreotti, 2010), where knowing is always tentative.According to social constructionism, knowledge is constructed in relationships between individuals depending on their context (Cohen et al., 2007) -knowledge is 'fluid, open to negotiation, and always provisional' (Andreotti, 2010: 6).There is no absolute 'right' or 'wrong' answer and different people might draw different conclusions depending on their experiences and perspectives.However, a critical approach is not an invitation to simply construct your own knowledge or a rejection of theoretical knowledge developed over time by experts, as Standish (2012) fears.Young's (2008) social realist approach is useful here.He recognizes the importance and objectivity of theoretical and subject-based knowledge (concepts, theories, ideas, etc.) but notes that these too are socially constructed, situated within a particular sociocultural and historical context, influenced by cultural and epistemological traditions, yet changing over time.Knowledge always comes from somewhere, from a particular historical and political context and all knowledge can be questioned.Critical approaches to GCE therefore aim to explore and make explicit the historical and contemporary manifestations of power.To be critical is to question the historical causes of contemporary problems such as poverty, globalization, and environmental damage (Andreotti, 2006).Historicity is also one of Rizvi's epistemic virtues: 'no set of cultural values and practices -can be understood without reference to the historical interactions that produced it' (Rizvi, 2009: 266).
It is also about asking why (Tallon, 2011).Why are some people in a position to be able to offer help while others live a hand-to-mouth existence?In order to understand the context of knowledge, it is also important to ask who is saying this, where is this account coming from, and whose interests does this account serve (Pashby, 2012).In this way, the critical approach resists an oversimplification of North-South relations and emphasizes the complexity of identities, problems, and issues.

Dialogue
Part of the impetus for learning how to ask critical questions comes from engaging with difference -whether difference in the form of theoretical knowledge or everyday experiences lived by different people.As Burbules and Beck (1999) point out, it is very difficult to see the limitations and gaps in our own understandings.For Santos (1998) there is only knowledge in difference.Engaging learners in alternative perspectives and other ways of seeing the world is important within critical approaches to GCE.It allows learners to 'learn and transform our [their] views/identities/relationships -to think otherwise' (Andreotti, 2006: 7).This is an important aspect of developing a language of possibility alongside a language of criticality (Giroux in Burbules and Beck, 1999) and allows learners to develop an alternative vision for the future.
Difference is a condition of criticality, when it is encountered in a context that allows for translations or communication across differences; when it is taken seriously, and not distanced as exotic or quaint; and when one does not use the excuse of 'incommensurability' as a reason to abandon dialogue.(Burbules and Beck, 1999: 60) The most obvious way to engage with difference is through dialogue.The purpose of dialogue is learning and this learning emerges from the opposition between different types of knowledge that people bring to the discussion.This is not about creating binaries between different groups or romanticizing and celebrating the voice of one group above another (Ziai, 2011).Rather, it is about recognizing heterogeneity and understanding the complexities and multiplicities (Banks, 2008).What someone says will vary depending on who he or she is talking to, for what purposes, and what pressures or responsibilities he or she has.Martin (2012) has proposed a relational model for thinking about difference.In this approach, the focus begins at the level of the individual and it is about understanding 'in-relation-to' others.What becomes important is not the object of understandingthe other -but the relationships that enable the understanding of differences (Martin, 2012).Dialogue is about 'learning from' and 'with' others in relationship rather than 'learning about' others.Learning 'about' entails a detached distance whereas learning 'from' and 'with' is a process of becoming in relation to others (Britzman quoted in Taylor, 2012: 190).This necessarily brings an element of uncertainty and risk.Drawing on the work of Emmanuel Levinas, Todd (2003) explains that the Other is infinitely unknowable.Bruce (2013) suggests that there should be no desire to get something predefined from the encounter as this reinforces a position of dominance.You cannot know beforehand how you will feel or respond when encountering the Other (Todd, 2003), and it is precisely in this element of risk and uncertainty that there is a possibility that one is taught something unexpected by the Other (Biesta in Bruce, 2013).

Reflection
In encountering the Other '"over there"' , Kapoor (2004: 641) argues that careful scrutiny is needed of 'the "here"' .Perhaps the signature move of a critical global citizenship education is the emphasis on reflection and a focus on examining the self and one's own assumptions, knowledge, and implication.Reflection is important in making connections between thinking, feeling, and acting.It has been described as 'the regular exercise of the mental ability, shared by all normal people, to consider themselves in relation to their (social) contexts and vice versa' (Archer, 2007: 4).However, recognition of self-implication is a form of 'difficult knowledge' , 'knowledge which implicates the learning self' , that can challenge learner identities and induce feelings of guilt and anger (Britzman quoted in Taylor, 2013: 59).It is not about personal narcissistic reflection but about becoming aware of connections between oneself and others, and the wider socio-political and natural environment.Young's (2006) Social Connection Model (SCM) of responsibility offers a useful way of conceptualizing connections within a wider frame that goes beyond individual implication.Rather than focusing on 'liability' or assigning blame for causing harm, she argues that issues such as poverty, racism, conflict, and climate change are examples of 'structural violence' and cannot be reduced to an individual or even a group act of wrong doing.On the contrary, structural violence exists as a result of normal, background conditions and is mediated by complex chains of relations and events (Young, 2006).The SCM questions these 'normal' conditions and aims to understand the complex processes that produce unjust outcomes.It refuses to mark out and isolate individual perpetrators.Furthermore, rather than looking backwards in order to issue blame, the SCM is predominantly forward looking.It is concerned with understanding the processes that produce injustices and motivating those who participate in those processes to act for change.Finally, the SCM sees responsibility (and complicity) as something that is shared (albeit unevenly) by individuals, corporations, and governmental organizations (Young, 2006).
Through her model, Young (2006) offers a set of conceptual tools for reflecting on responsibility -power, privilege, ability, and interest -in much the same way that the geographer Massey (1993) coined the term power-geometry to explore how individuals and groups are differently positioned in relation to the flows and processes of globalization.The utility of Young's (2006) model has also been noted by Applebaum (2007) who suggests that it has the potential to reduce instances of denial and to open up a space for self-reflection in a more collective sense.

Responsible being/action (transformation)
As a result of critical thinking, dialogue, and reflection, there may be transformation and change.However, this process is not linear or straightforward.The nature of action is not defined but emerges through careful consideration of the problem at stake, dialogue with others, and self-reflection.Action is also closely linked to personal values.As Andreotti (2006: 7) explains, action results from 'a choice of the individual after a careful analysis of the context of intervention, of different views, of power relations (especially the position of who is intervening) and of short and longterm (positive and negative) implications of goals and strategies' .This understanding of action is closely aligned with the action in action competence.The concept of action competence was developed in Denmark in response to dissatisfaction with educational theory that tends to regard the task of education as one of behavioural change according to a predetermined agenda.Action competence is distinct from behaviour change in that it is not about telling learners what they should or should not do but about providing them with information and encouraging them to find appropriate solutions.The actions in action competence 'are characterized by the fact that they are done consciously and that they have been considered and targeted' (Jensen and Schnack, 2006: 474).This understanding of action is close to Freire's (1970Freire's ( /1996) ) concept of praxis, which refers to the balanced union of action and reflection.
Responsible being and action is important in bringing about transformation and challenging oppressive structures.This is not about taking responsibility in the paternalistic sense of being responsible for others, but is a more ethical stance towards others tied closely to the discussion around complicity and self-reflection in the above section (Andreotti, 2006).Massey (2005) posits a theory of responsibility in which the complex issue of implication is brought to the fore.She eloquently shows how 'the lived reality of our daily lives is utterly dispersed, unlocalized, in its sources and in its repercussions' and our responsibilities derive through these relations on the basis of our identity (Massey, 2005: 184).We are responsible because of the relations we depend upon in our daily lives.For example, the clothes we wear implicate us in complex chains of production and consumption, trade, and economy.Through these historical and contemporary chains we become responsible to factory workers in Bangladesh, cotton-growers in the USA, and the land upon which the cotton is intensively farmed.With issues of poverty, conflict, and environmental degradation being part of our daily existence, it is about being responsible for who we are, which 'turns the spotlight on ourselves' (Cloke, 2002: 601).
In turning towards our own practices, Banks (2008) distinguishes between active citizenship and transformative citizenship.The former consists of actions that take place within existing laws, customs, and conventions which seek to support and maintain, whereas transformative actions are directed towards challenging existing political and social structures.In doing so, they may violate existing norms, conventions, and laws, including norms of fashion, consumption, and taste (Young, 2006).This is not to overemphasize individual responsibility.On the contrary, from a critical perspective, responsible action is conceived in terms of transforming the structures that perpetuate inequality.In this sense, it is about targeting the root of the problem rather than the symptoms (Jensen and Schnack, 2006).Critical global citizenship education (CGCE) is cautious of overestimating the individual as an actor for social change.It is about encouraging learners to see their individual actions in perspective: e.g.does this solution to the problem require that many act in the same way?Are there conditions preventing people from acting in this way?What can be done to make it possible for more people to act (Jensen and Schnack, 2006)?Acting responsibly means taking account of our connections and disconnections and weighing up different paths of action depending on the time, energy, resources, and capabilities available (Young, 2006).Responsibility has multiple meanings and 'should not be reduced to a matter of causality or a matter of assisting those less fortunate' (Barnett et al., 2011: 4).For Andreotti and de Souza (2008), it is about learning to reach out in whatever way is most appropriate depending on the context.The characteristics of each of the four concepts within this framework are summarized in the table below.All teachers gave permission for me to observe their lessons and were used to seeing the researcher around the school.They were fully informed about the focus of the research on global citizenship education, but the specific focus on critical approaches was not discussed with the teachers.During the lessons, I sat with the students and sometimes took the role of a volunteer classroom assistant, but mostly I was an observer.
The lessons selected for this paper have been chosen because they demonstrate examples of critical thinking, dialogue, and reflection in practice.There was less data for responsible being/action, which would not necessarily have been expected as an outcome of an individual lesson and is harder to demonstrate since it may be something very personal and internal to the students involved.The examples are drawn from a range of lessons including Geography, English, and a collapsed timetable day on the Holocaust.They are not focused on traditional global citizenship education themes such as poverty or development but each example includes elements of 'global' themes including difference and similarity, prejudice, conflict, and environmental impact.I recognize that the 'local' and the 'global' are not distinct but are co-produced through the same processes (Massey, 2005).
The examples presented in this paper are based on observational data.The teachers did not know what the researcher was looking for and there was little opportunity to discuss the content of the lessons in advance.Future work would benefit from follow-up interviews with teachers in which they are given the opportunity to identify examples of critical global citizenship education pedagogy themselves and reflect upon what worked and why.See Brown (2014) for discussion of educator's views of critical thinking in the UK and Spain.Future work with students might also explore factors that had a transformational impact upon them.

Y8 English, The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time
The first example comes from a Y8 English lesson in which students were reading Haddon's (2003), The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time.The aim of the lesson was 'to explore the presentation of Christopher' , the main character in the book (Lesson Objective, 16 June 2011), a boy who is thought to have Asperger's.Through this lesson, the students explored the construction of the 'other' , in this case a person with a disability.Disability can be seen as a global issue, particularly in terms of how governments respond to the needs of the disabled and how cultures treat them.The lesson also engages with the students' own assumptions about the 'other' , which could be applied to other kinds of difference such as cultural or religious differences.In this sense, the issue of engagement with the 'other' can be seen as a global issue.
Although they started with the labels of 'ordinary' and 'unusual' , these were not seen as binary opposites as in many models of difference and constructions of 'us' and 'them' that often characterize GCE (Martin, 2012).Instead they were seen as part of a continuum and the students were encouraged to break these binaries down.At times there were disagreements among the students about what counted as 'ordinary' and what counted as 'unusual' .The activity encouraged the students to see different aspects of Christopher's character at different points along the continuum -Christopher is both ordinary in his love of dogs and murder mystery novels, and different in his behaviour towards policemen and his recollection of his age in exact days.Students placed themselves at different points along the scale for different aspects of their identity, recognizing that there is no pure 'ordinary' .
Creating a safe space for discussion.The English teacher explained that this is about the student's own response to Christopher, which is a personal thing.There are no right or wrong answers.
Some students were worried about saying something 'wrong' or offensive.For example, 'he doesn't recognize faces -is it offensive to say that?' Yet the conversation was open and they were able to share their ideas.

Dialogue
The students were asked to discuss their ideas in groups, saying where they had chosen to put the information on their continuum and why.
There was disagreement over whether Christopher understands emotion.One student pointed to a passage where Christopher said he felt sad.'This shows that although he doesn't recognize other people's emotions, he does have emotions and can recognize them in himself.'

Reflection
Agree/disagree activity using statements.The class were asked to think about their own response and assumptions towards Christopher by deciding which statements they most agreed with.Christopher had called one of his classmates stupid: 1) I thought he was so rude!Siobhan [his teacher] should have told him off.
2) Christopher's comments made me laugh, but then I felt guilty for finding it funny.
3) Christopher doesn't have any real understanding of other people's feelings, so he doesn't mean to be cruel.

Responsible being and action
While not explicit, the lesson encouraged students to reflect on their own responses to others before making judgements or acting.
One student commented that she finds it amazing how Christopher trusts in himself and is able to think through things for himself.For her, 'most of us would just ask if we didn't understand something, especially something big like space.But Christopher thinks about it himself' .
Similarly, the students placed themselves at different points along the scale for different aspects of their identity, recognizing that there is no pure 'ordinary' .This deconstruction of sameness and difference is akin to Martin's (2012) relational understanding, which begins at the individual level, with each individual understanding his or her own identity 'in-relation-to' others.It has potential to lead to a more complex and deeper understanding of difference than a homogenizing approach that may, for example, define Christopher only in terms of his Asperger's.
The final comment by the student about Christopher's musings of the galaxy suggested that she had been encouraged to see something from Christopher's perspective -from reading the book she had taken away something unexpected about Christopher's ability to think things through for himself.This could be seen as an example of being taught something unexpected by the Other (Bruce, 2013;Todd, 2003).It was an unintended outcome of the class and one with potential to influence the actions of the students in the future.

Y9 Holocaust day
The second example comes from a collapsed timetable day for Y9 students as part of a broader Holocaust and Genocide Education Programme within the school.This was an extensive programme that had been developed over four years by a highly motivated and dedicated RE teacher, focusing on addressing issues of prejudice, conflict, international law, justice, and human rights, and looking at genocides in Bosnia and Herzegovina and Rwanda.The objectives of the day were: to know that the Holocaust was complex and that stereotypes oversimplify; to understand that each individual experience of the Holocaust is unique and the importance of speaking up and speaking out appropriately; and to develop the skills of communication, listening, empathy, reflection, evaluation, and group/ team work.
(Lesson Plan, 25 April 2012) The collapsed timetable day was part of a wider programme linked to schemes of work in History, RE, Drama, and English and accompanied by a range of optional extra-curricular activities and events for students and the wider community.This example focuses on a speaker visit by a 92-year-old Holocaust survivor, which formed part of 2012 Holocaust day that focused on the Holocaust Memorial Day (HMD) theme of Speak Up, Speak Out, and a commitment to individual choices.This event had been prepped at length in History and RE lessons in the run-up to the day and on the day itself.

Critical thinking
Morning sessions and ongoing preparation for the day explored roles -victim, perpetrator, bystander, and rescuer -and what kinds of people were involved in the Holocaust.Students were given a series of photographs of people involved in the Holocaust and asked to find five adjectives to describe them based on the pictures.They were then given information about who the people were and the role they played.
When asked what they had learnt from the activity, students commented that, 'looks can be deceiving' , 'people can look nice but they're not' , 'it's important to get to know people first before judging them' .

Dialogue
Students were encouraged to ask questions in the talk.
E.g.Do you find it hard to talk about it so openly?Do you consider yourself lucky?
Would you ever forgive the Nazis?

Reflection
Students were asked to write down on Postit notes what they were expecting from the survivor talk beforehand.
Afterwards they were asked to complete the following worksheet questions.
• Before hearing from the survivor I was expecting … • Before hearing from the survivor I felt … • The survivor was/was not what I was expecting because … • One question I would have liked to ask the survivor was … • The thing I learned from the survivor talk or the one thing that I will most remember about him was … They were expecting a 'frail' , 'old' man, some imagined that he would be 'sad' , while others expected him to be more 'relaxed' , that he would have 'come to terms with what happened' and be 'at peace with himself' .Informal comments suggested that the students were quite surprised to find a talkative and lively older man with an obvious sense of humour and a sense of adventure.

Responsible being and action
The day was focused on the theme 'Speak Up, Speak Out' and a commitment to individual choices.
The speaker spoke about a difficult and brave act of resistance in which he admitted his true Jewish identity in order to protect fellow members of the French resistance and, consequently, was taken to Auschwitz.It offered the students an example of a different way in which one can take action in the face of injustice.
Many of the students were very inspired by the survivor's story, describing him as a 'hero' and a 'legend' (Fieldnotes, 25 April 2012).
Others commented how they had learned not to just stand back and let things happen (Y9 Student, 23 May 2012).
The day challenged the discourses that students might have about 'good' people and 'bad' people, demonstrating that Nazi officials were real people with families of their own.This encouraged the students to engage critically with stereotypes of people involved in the Holocaust and to challenge simplistic discourses of 'good' and 'bad' .This forms part of Todd's (2008) call to face humanity with all its antagonistic elements rather than one-sidedly focusing on the goodness of humanity.
The survivor's story illustrated that taking responsible action is not necessarily easy -for him, it resulted in being sent to Auschwitz.The focus on choices helped to construct responsible being and action as an integral part of everyday life, about taking responsibility for our own actions rather than being responsible for others in a paternalistic sense.This contrasts with approaches that see action as something outside of our normal daily experience (Jefferess, 2012).The actions discussed here were informed and intentional as in the action competence approach outlined in Chapter Two (Jensen and Schnack, 2006).

Y8 Geography oil spill
The final example comes from a Y8 Geography lesson, the aims of which were: (1) for students to learn and understand something about the 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill and its impact; and (2) to think about who was to blame for the disaster and form an opinion about who should pay for the clean-up (Lesson Objective, 6 May 2011).The class watched a Panorama programme, BP in Deep Water, which consisted of a series of interview clips with various BP workers, rig workers, fishermen from the southern United States, and environmentalists.The programme was critical of British-run multinational BP, which it blames for the spill.The class were then asked to consider who should pay for the clear up given two main contenders: (1) BP: a British-owned multinational company drilling in American waters; and (2) The American taxpayer.

Critical thinking
Asking questions e.g.why has the demand for oil increased in recent years?
Who should pay for the disaster?BP or the taxpayer?Why?
The students offered the following responses; 'is it because the population is growing?' , and 'everything we do requires oil?' Summarizing different complex viewpoints about who should pay for the disaster (BP or the American taxpayer).E.g.BP owns the rig but Transocean were running it.BP received all the profits.They were drilling in deep water in order to meet demand from the public.They tried desperately to stop the leak.America has the highest demand for oil, the spillage was in their waters and affected their economies.BP pays American employees to work on the rig, and Transocean and Halliburton (the concrete company) are American firms.The American public uses oil, we use oil, and by doing so we encourage multinational companies (MNCs) to drill in risky areas.
This summary prompted the students to ask lots of questions of their own.E.g. 'What happens to the rig when they've finished using it?', 'Have BP spent more on the clean-up than they would have done by fixing the problem?' , 'Have they cleaned up all of the oil or is it still there?'

Dialogue
The students were asked to write their own response to the question 'BP vs taxpayer.
Why? Are we all to blame for this disaster?Why?' They were then asked to share their own views.
Many felt that BP should have sorted the problem.Others formed a view of shared responsibility, seeing both MNCs and consumers as jointly responsible.E.g. 'It's hard to blame one person or company.Everyone should be checking.'

Reflection
The teacher shared his own personal viewpoint e.g.'I believe, whether we like it or not, we are all partly to blame because of our iPods, holidays, cars and lifestyles this created.' This reflection opened up the space for students to share their own ideas.

Responsible being and action
There was no explicit call to action within the lesson but the idea of shared responsibility for oil consumption was raised and students wrote about this in their written pieces and poems that were written in subsequent lessons.E.g.
'Maybe we are all insane Using all the oil we claim Maybe we are all to blame For the rig that went up in flames.' The lesson encouraged the students to reflect upon their own implication in the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, demonstrating reflection.While there was a tendency to talk in terms of the liability model of responsibility that assigns blame to individual actors, potentially foreclosing the possibility that other people are also responsible (Young, 2006), many students developed their own view of shared responsibility, seeing both MNCs and consumers as jointly responsible.

Conclusion
This paper aims to contribute to an understanding of critical global citizenship education through providing a clear pedagogical framework.This framework consists of four dimensions: critical thinking, dialogue, reflection, and responsible being and action.A number of key characteristics were identified under each dimension by drawing on literature from a variety of critical and postcolonial traditions.This framework could be developed for use in research or in the evaluation of global citizenship education initiatives.As a tool for research it could usefully be employed to identify strategies that teachers use to encourage critical thinking, dialogue, and reflection within their classrooms in a safe and supportive way, the challenges they face, as well as exploring the learning process for students.Recently, there have also been a number of calls for tools for monitoring and evaluation that engage with the complexity of the learning process rather than demonstrating predetermined behavioural change outcomes (Bourn, 2015;Brown, 2015;Fricke et al., 2015).This framework provides a possible way of exploring the learning process in detail.
The second part of this paper begins to show how this framework might be used as a tool for analysing global citizenship education initiatives and lessons.Drawing on three examples from an English secondary school, the framework begins to show what a critical global citizenship education might look like and how it can be part of curriculum subjects rather than something additional or 'extra' .Examples of critical thinking, dialogue, and reflection were found across all three examples.There was less data for responsible being/action.However, responsible being/action would not necessarily have been expected as an outcome of an individual lesson and is harder to demonstrate since it may be something very personal and internal to the students involved.Further research involving dialogue with teachers and students would be insightful in this respect.
The paper has started to illustrate some of the strategies that teachers might use across a variety of subject areas in order to encourage critical thinking, dialogue, reflection, and ultimately responsible being and action.The examples used here all involve a stimulus -a book, a film, or a talk -in order to explore issues of difference, environment, and action.The kinds of strategies that teachers used included asking questions, creating a safe space for discussion where there are no 'right' or 'wrong' answers, asking students to share their assumptions, encouraging dialogue, sharing their own opinions, and showing how individual choices have an impact.It supports Schweisfurth's (2006) findings in Ontario, Canada, that teachers who are motivated to make critical GCE a priority are able to find creative ways to do so within the curriculum.It also illustrates some of the challenges that teachers may face when fostering critical global citizenship education in their classrooms.For example, supporting students to feel comfortable to share their thoughts and opinions, deciding when and whether to share their own opinions, and how to respond to unexpected questions or comments.These discomforts are perhaps an inevitable part of critical global citizenship education, yet something that is important to understand in order to support teachers and students to explore and engage with them.

Table 1 : A pedagogy of critical global citizenship education
This paper now presents three examples to illustrate how this framework might be used for analysis within research and evaluation of global citizenship education practice.It draws on ethnographic fieldwork from doctoral research in one English secondary school between April 2011 and July 2012.During this time, over 80 visits were made to the school and a pupil pursuit approach was adopted, whereby the researcher attended lessons throughout the day with the pupils.This enabled the researcher to experience global citizenship education from the pupils' perspective and avoided limiting the study to areas typically associated with global citizenship education such as Geography or school linking activities.The examples are each drawn from the formal curriculum and based on lesson observations and activities.

Table 2 : Y8 English lesson
Blackmore is a Research Associate at the University of Bath, UK.She has a Master's in Wellbeing and Human Development and a PhD in Education from the University of Bath.She also has experience of monitoring and evaluation of educational initiatives where she works for the Soil Association's Food for Life schools programme.