English edition Online edition: ISSN 2188-8264

Print edition: ISSN 2188-8256

Language Teacher Education

੉ୁઇపઇ୘
ْVol.4 No.2ٓ
JACETSIG-ELE Journal
JACETᩍ⫱ၥ㢟◊✲఍ ఍ㄅ

JACETSIG-ELE Journal
Language Teacher Education and Related Fields

August 2017
JACET SIG on English Language EducaƟon
hƩp://www.waseda.jp/assoc-jacetenedu/
【English edition】 Online edition: ISSN 2188-8264
Print edition: ISSN 2188-8256

Language Teacher Education

言語教師教育 2017
【Vol.4 No.2】

JACETSIG-ELE Journal
JACET 教育問題研究会 会誌

August 2017
JACET SIG on English Language Education
http://www.waseda.jp/assoc-jacetenedu/
Language Teacher Education Vol4, No. 2, JACETSIG-ELE Journal
Published by the Special Interest Group of the Japan Association of College English
Teachers on English Language Education
c/o Hisatake Jimbo, School of Commerce, Waseda University
1-6-1 Nishi-Waseda, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo 169-8050

© JACET SIG on English Language Education 2017

Online edition: ISSN 2188-8264 Print edition: ISSN 2188-8256

No part of this journal may be reproduced in any form without permission in writing
from JACET SIG on English Language Education.

Printed by Tobunsha for the JACET SIG in Japan.

 Language Teacher Education Vol.4 No.2, August 10, 2017

Table of Contents

Editors, reviewers and contributing authors ……………………………………… (iv)

Special Contributions from European Countries
【Article from Italy】
CLIL Teacher Education: Issues and Direction………… Carmel Mary Coonan 1

【Research paper from Germany】

Global Citizenship Education in English Language Teaching:
A German Perspective …………………………………… Christiane Lütge 17

【Article from Rumania】

EPOSTL has Crossed the Continents: Is There a Follow-up Needed?
…………………………………… Anca-Mariana Pegulescu 29
J-POSTL-related Articles
【Research Note】
What English Language Educators Can Do with Global Citizenship Education:
an Insight from the Survey Results on J-POSTL Self-assessment Descriptors
………………………Fumiko Kurihara & Ken Hisamura 47

【Practical Report】
In-service Training for Junior High School Teachers with J-POSTL:
To Establish a Model of Learning English Teachers
………Chihiro Kato, Fuminori Koide & Yuichi Maeyashiki 59
Articles on English Language Education
【Research Paper】
Japanese Engineering Students’ Attitudes toward Studying Abroad and Living
with Other Cultures in an Increasingly Globalized World …………Rie Adachi 75

【Research Note】
The Effect of Corrective Feedback on English Writing:
A Comparison of Different Types of Focus ……………………Mitsuru Kato 94

Chronicle: April 2016—March 2017 …………………………………………… 110

Submission guidelines ……………………………………………… 113

（ⅲ）
Language Teacher Education Vol.4 No.2, August 10, 2017

Language Teacher Education Vol.4 No.2

Managing Editor
Jimbo, Hisatake (Professor Emeritus, Waseda University)

Editors
Chief Editor:
Hisamura, Ken (Professor Emeritus, Den-en Chofu University)
Associate Editors:
Sakai, Shien (Professor, Chiba University of Commerce)
Kiyota,Yoichi (Professor, Meisei University)

Reviewers
Asaoka, Chitose (Associate Professor, Dokkyo University)
Fujio, Misa (Professor, Toyo University)
Matsuzaka, Hiroshi (Professor, Waseda University)
Oda, Masaki (Professor, Tamagawa University)
Shimoyama, Yukinari (Associate Professor, Toyo Gakuen University)
Yoffe, Leonid (Associate Professor, Waseda University)
Yoshida, Tatsuhiro (Professor, Hyogo University of Teacher Education)

Contributing Authors
[Special Contributions from Europe]
Coonan, Carmel Mary (Professor, Università Ca’ Foscari Venezia, Italy)
Lütge, Christiane (Professor, Munich University, Germany)
Pegulescu, Anca-Mariana (Associate lecturer Dr., the Bucharest University of
Economic Studies, Rumania)
[J-POSTL-related Articles]
Kurihara, Fumiko (Professor, Chuo Universty)
Hisamura, Ken (Professor Emeritus, Den-en Chofu University)
Kato, Chihiro (Associate Professor, Yokohama City University)
Koide, Fuminori (Superintendent, Yokohama City Board of Education)
Maeyashiki, Yuichi (Teacher, Yokohama City Kawawa Junior High School)
[Articles on English Language Education]
Adachi, Rie (Associate Professor, Aichi University)
Kato, Mitsuru (Lecturer, Rikkyo Niiza Junior and Senior High School)

（ⅳ）
 Language Teacher Education Vol.4 No.2, August 10, 2017

【Research paper from Germany】

Global Citizenship Education in English Language Teaching:
A German Perspective

Christiane Lütge

Abstract
Internationalisation and globalisation are phenomena that have reached the
EFL Classroom in different contexts. Global Citizenship Education is one of
the most influential concepts currently conquering curricula and educational
institutions around the globe. Firmly rooted in the paradigm of inter- and
transcultural learning, the potential of the global dimension and its impact on
language learning is developing at very different paces worldwide. This paper
briefly sketches some major developments and challenges for EFL with a
special emphasis on global (citizenship) education in Germany.

Keywords
global education, citizenship education, English language learning

1. From Intercultural Learning to Citizenship Education?

Internationally, Global Citizenship Education (GCE) has become a professional concern

of many teachers and teacher educators. Its impact on foreign language teaching is
constantly growing. Global issues such as peace, human rights, globalisation,
sustainability and the environment enter the school curricula in different subjects
worldwide. In fact, internationalisation and globalisation are phenomena that have
meanwhile reached the EFL Classroom in different contexts. As many scholars argue, it
is important to consider that the purpose of foreign language learning is not only to
combine utility and educational value but also to show learners how they can and
should engage with the international globalised world in which they participate.
Whether we are in fact faced with a “global turn” stretching into English language
teaching requires more theorizing, particularly on the role of culture in the global age
and what it stands for in such a phrase as “global culture” – and its alleged paradoxical
nature. The imminent danger of a “new imperialism” has to be taken seriously in order
to move beyond approaches that tokenize and exoticize foreign places and people from
the perspective of e.g. the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand (cf. Ho 2009, Pashby
2012 and 2015, Porto 2014, Osler/Starkey 2015). Decolonizing the educational mind
may thus be seen as an important agenda outlined in Andreotti´s and de Souza´s (2012)
book “Postcolonial Perspectives on Global Citizenship Education”. While this issue is
important for education in general, the ELT context is a special one.

17

－ 17 －
Language Teacher Education Vol.4 No.2, August 10, 2017

Over the past decades Intercultural Communicative Competence (ICC) has developed as
a major paradigm in foreign language education and has become an integral part of the
curricula both in Europe and particularly in Germany (Byram 2008). Recently, the
discussion is moving towards more transcultural and global aspects. Intercultural
approaches have sometimes been criticized for stressing the “inter” too much in the
sense of differences, difficulties or a general lack of understanding which needs to be
overcome. As a contrast, transcultural learning – allegedly transgressing cultural borders
and stressing the commonalities more than the differences – has been discussed in ELT
and seems to be partly feeding into the discourse on Global Citizenship Education
(GCE) with its strong emphasis on political education. There may not be a
unidirectional and simplified line leading from intercultural towards transcultural
learning and global citizenship education as a final step. However, it is quite remarkable
to see how the academic ELT discourse on cultural aspects of learning has developed.
Byram – as he points out himself – uses the term intercultural citizenship for what
others call world, global or cosmopolitan citizenship (Byram 2008).

The development is characterized by a variety of different challenges, e.g.

terminological questions in a multitude of different concepts (global education,
education for sustainability, global citizenship, service learning etc.) that need to be
more clearly defined. Other challenges address questions of cultural representation and
cultural relativism with a view to the development towards “intercultural speakers” and
“global citizens”. This may also shed some light on the perspectives and challenges for
the concept of global citizenship in Europe amidst more recent developments like
migration and transcultural contact. According to Pennycook we live in a world of
wide-ranging and ongoing cultural “borrowing, bending and blending” and there seems
to be a constant “fluidity of cultural relations across global contexts” (Pennycook 2007).
However, this somehow does not really help the teachers in EFL classrooms whose
mission it must be to implement concepts of GCE in institutionalized classroom settings.
Establishing what Claire Kramsch (1998) has called the “intercultural speaker” and now
adding what Michael Byram (2008) and others refer to as the “global citizen” remains
difficult for many teachers and teacher educators worldwide – especially when the
notion of globalisation is not univocally cherished but comes under the threat of
destroying alleged national identities or regional varieties. Mistaking these approaches
as harbingers of a new – somehow even threatening – “global culture” could be
obstacles to intercultural understanding.

2. Terminology

The concept of global citizenship and its underlying ambiguity may be universally
relevant, however – as Byram and Parmenter (2015) point out, the global discourse of

18

－ 18 －
 Language Teacher Education Vol.4 No.2, August 10, 2017

global citizenship is not universally, i.e. “globally” representative but has been
dominated by researchers of the Global North and Western thinking on globalisation.
Any conceptualization for educational contexts and particularly for the EFL context
must bear this in mind. The recent focus on global citizenship has triggered a debate
over the term itself, e.g. concerning concepts such as “world citizenship”,
“cosmopolitan citizenship”, or “globally oriented citizenship” (Byram and Parmenter
2015). Other concepts include e.g. “global education”, “education for sustainability” or
“world-centred education”; and some global scholars use these terms interchangeably.
Other authors speak about concepts such as “international education”, “developmental
education”, “education for development”, “global perspectives in education”, or “world
studies” (Pike 1997, Tye 1999).

These terms revolving around different facets of global education, however, still remain
fuzzy and ambivalent. Whether they are seen as buzz words or as travelling concepts,
Graham Pike rightly points out:

“A major difficulty in any comparative study of global education – and a hindrance,

perhaps, to a global dialogue – lies in the use of the terminology itself. First, the term
global education is not universal; although commonly used in North America, a host of
other labels are attached to similar educational initiatives around the world […]” (Pike
2000:64)

According to Kirkwood, inconsistencies in the use of terminology are not uncommon in

the process of defining a new field:

“Since its evolution after World War II, the alleged incongruities surrounding the
definition of a global education have given way to a general consensus among scholars
that “global education”, “world-centred education” and “global perspectives in
education” have similar if not identical meanings. Proponents seem to agree that each
construct stands for an education that brings the world into the classroom, where
teachers teach from a world-centric rather than an ethno-specific or nation-state specific
perspective.” (Kirkwood 2001:3)

In the EFL context, “global education” and “intercultural citizenship education” are the
terms most widely used (cf. Byram 2008, Cates 2004, Lütge 2015) for similar
approaches within language teaching. Kip Cates from Tottori University in Japan
describes global education as an approach to language teaching that involves
“integrating a global perspective into classroom instruction through a focus
on international themes, lessons built around global issues (peace,

19

－ 19 －
Language Teacher Education Vol.4 No.2, August 10, 2017

development, the environment, human rights), classroom activities linking

students to the wider world and concepts such as social responsibility and
world citizenship” (Cates 2004).
For him, global education entails the following four dimensions:
1. knowledge about world countries and cultures, and about global problems,
their causes and solutions;
2. skills of critical thinking, cooperative problem solving, conflict solution, and
seeing issues from multiple perspectives;
3. attitudes of global awareness, cultural appreciation, respect for diversity, and
empathy;
4. action: the final aim of global learning is to have students ‘think globally and
act locally’. (Cates 2004: 241)
In response to criticism concerning allegedly universalist tendencies of the concept it
needs to be stressed, though, that “the global education movement does not signal a
globalisation of education: rather it reflects the development of more globally-oriented
models of national education.” (Pike 2000:71)

3. The International Context

An increasing number of national governments and educational institutions have taken

up issues of “global education” and/or “citizenship education” into their curricula and
are publishing definitions or frameworks that may be used as guides for activities.
According to Byram and Parmenter (2015), one of the earliest examples is the Oxfam
definition from 1997 focusing on responsibilities for action, awareness of the wider
world, respect for diversity and the aim of making the world a more equitable and
sustainable place. Governments worldwide have also incorporated global citizenship into
their curricula. Australia was among the first to develop a framework with the goal of
having students take responsibility for their actions, respect diversity, and contribute to a
peaceful, just and sustainable world. This emphasis on the values of respect and
responsibility can meanwhile be found in many statements by national ministries of
education. Other examples are the Maastricht Global Education Declaration of 2002, as
Byram and Parmenter (2015) point out, one of the groundworks for European initiatives.
The Global Education Guidelines published by the Council of Europe provides a list of
the required knowledge, skills, values and attitudes including suggestions for teaching
methodologies.

Worldwide the UNESCO set the Sustainable Development Goal. The global education
agenda is part of the 17 UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), that make up the
Agenda 2030 for sustainable development (UNESCO 2002). The Global Goals and

20

－ 20 －
 Language Teacher Education Vol.4 No.2, August 10, 2017

targets aim to stimulate action over the next fifteen years in the Five Ps of critical
importance: People, Planet, Prosperity, Peace and Partnership. Topics and learning
objectives comprise cognitive, socio-emotional and behavioural dimensions of global
citizenship education. These translate into several types of different domains of learning:
- The cognitive domain involves the acquisition of knowledge, an understanding
and critical thinking about global, regional, national and local issues and the
interconnectedness and interdependency of different countries and populations.
- The socio-emotional domain involves a sense of belonging to a common
humanity, sharing values and responsibilities, empathy, solidarity and respect for
differences and diversity.
- The behavioural domain involves acting effectively and responsibly at local,
national and global levels for a more peaceful and sustainable world.

The topics and learning objectives of Global Citizenship Education are grouped
according to these three domains featuring certain key learning outcomes, key learner
attributes and topics (cf. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0023/002329/232993e.pdf):

Domains of learning
Cognitive Socio-Emotional Bahavioural
Key Learning outcomes
 Learners acquire  Learners experience a  Learners act effectively
knowledge and sense of belonging to a and responsibly at local,
understanding of local, common humanity, national and global
national and global sharing values and levels for a more
issues and the responsibilities, based peaceful and sustainable
interconnectedness and on human rights world
interdependency of  Learners develop  Learners develop
different countries and attitudes of empathy, motivation and
populations solidarity and respect for willingness to take
 Learners develop skills differences and diversity necessary actions
for critical thinking and
analysis
Key Learner Attributes
Informed and critically Socially connected and Ethically responsible and
literate respectful of diversity engaged
Topics
1. Local, national and 4. Different levels of 7. Actions that can be taken
global systems and identity individually and
structures 5. Different communities collectively
2. Issues affecting people belong to and how 8. Ethically responsible
interaction and these are connected behavior
connectedness of 6. Difference and respect for 9. Getting engaged and
communities at local, diversity

21

－ 21 －
Language Teacher Education Vol.4 No.2, August 10, 2017

national and global levels taking action

3. Underlying assumptions
and power dynamics

4. The German Context

Since the mid-1990s the federal administration and the federal states in Germany have
been adapting their policies to the basic concept of sustainable development as defined by
Agenda 21. Below is a chronology of the most important steps:

 In 1998 the German Parliaments Commission of Inquiry on the “Protection of

Man and the Environment” published its final report entitled “The Concept of
Sustainability – from principle to implementation”.
 In 2000 the German Parliament unanimously passed the resolution “Education for
Sustainable Development (ESD)”.
 One year later the German government set up a state secretary committee for
sustainable development, which is maintained by the present government, and
appointed the Council for Sustainable Development.
 To implement the concept of sustainable development into all educational levels
in Germany, a National Plan of Action for the UN Decade was developed in 2005
on the basis of a resolution unanimously adopted by the German Parliament. The
aim is to integrate ESD cross-sectorally in all policy areas that are relevant to
sustainable development. Some federal states have already initiated their own
plans of action for the promotion of the UN Decade, while several others are
preparing those plans.

The National Plan of Action includes numerous measures for planning, dissemination
and embedding Education for Sustainable Development (ESD). The programme
“Transfer 21” is one of these measures. The concept of participatory skills in ESD is
being developed within the framework of Transfer 21, together with the
“Cross-Curricular Framework for Global Development Education”. The
Cross-Curricular Framework for Global Development Education offers support for
schools, school book publishers and all those in the education system who administrate
and plan curricula. The project goal is to integrate global development into school
curricula, thus promoting “Education for Sustainable Development”. The framework

 is a conceptual framework for the development of syllabi and curricula, for

designing lessons and extra-curricular activities as well as for setting and
assessing requirements for specific subjects and learning areas;
 offers inspiration for school profile and full-day school programme development,
for cooperation with external partners and for teacher education;

22

－ 22 －
 Language Teacher Education Vol.4 No.2, August 10, 2017

 offers concrete recommendations and suggestions for the interdisciplinary and

cross-disciplinary organisation of instruction, and offers classroom materials (for
vocational schools as well), to work out intricate global development issues.

The Cross-Curricular Framework for Global Development in Germany is focusing

strongly on three aspects connected to the foundations of intercultural learning, i.e. on
“recognizing”, “evaluating” and “taking action” (Kultusministerkonferenz 2016). These
general goals have been transferred into the specific situation of every single subject and
its specific requirement.

For foreign language learning these categories are explained in the following way:
- “Recognizing” refers to knowledge about the language and language learning,
about language varieties, language as a medium for encountering the global world
and linguistic variety as prerequisite for cultural pluralism.
- “Evaluating” refers to the impact of the global dimension of language learning
and is concerned with the pupils´ judgement, e.g. with a view to manipulation
through language, the representation of global development and power structures,
relating their world views to those of others, questions of discrimination and their
impact on teaching and learning about languages and cultures.
- “Taking action” involves communicating and resolving conflicts, maintaining
the ability to act during global change, participating and shaping cultural
contexts. Most importantly, this involves building up the motivation for lifelong
participation in encounters with foreign languages and cultures as an active
global citizen.

The “Crosscurricular Framework” provides suggestions for application in the English

Language Classroom and specifies the following areas and topics as examples:

Areas Topics
Diversity and inclusion • Arranged marriages
• Festivals
Globalisation of religious and ethnic • Creation vs. Evolution
role models • Church meets state
• Democracy – an ideology for the whole
world?

23

－ 23 －
Language Teacher Education Vol.4 No.2, August 10, 2017

History of Globalisation: from Australia: Aborigines, (Aboriginal) Languages,

Colonialization to the global village Immigration
English in India: The heritage of British
colonialization
New Englishes: Remaking a colonial language in
post-colonial contexts
Goods from all over the world: Coffee – the world‘s most traded commodity
Production, commerce and The “Play Fair” campaign and the international
consumption sportswear industry
Agriculture and diet Hunger in a world of plenty, e.g. global food
production
Health and diseases • Public health in emergencies (Oxfam)
• Fighting famine in the Horn of Africa
Education • The Internet
• Illiteracy－barrier to cultural growth
Globalised leisure • This thing called “Youth Culture”
• Football as the world’s game
• An internet lifestyle
Preservation and usage of natural How green is your future?
resources and generation of energy • The carbon footprint
• Low impact living

5. Perspectives and Challenges

Educating for global citizenship has increasingly become a shared goal of educators and
educational institutions worldwide and is not restricted to foreign language teaching. In
fact, almost all subjects might be connected to questions of globalisation, which, however,
carries the danger of blurring the terminology. The impact of global topics is likely to
gain even more importance in foreign language teaching due to the significance of the
English language. Inter- or transcultural learning and global issues are in fact mutually
connected and it may well be that the conceptual integration of both will lead to
innovative impulses for English language education.

However, the ‘global turn’ in English language education is not exclusively about
“greening the classroom”. Education for sustainable development must explore the
economic, political and social implications of sustainability by encouraging learners to
reflect critically on their own areas of the world, to identify non-viable elements in their
own lives, to explore the tensions among conflicting aims and to use the chances:

24

－ 24 －
 Language Teacher Education Vol.4 No.2, August 10, 2017

A big chance for global issues in the EFL classroom lies in the universal
scope of topics relevant for different people and cultures, i.e. in their potential
as global interfaces transgressing culture boundaries and conflicts and turning
into a collective learning experience. (Lütge 2013:145)

Another thorny issue extends to questions of developing world or “global citizens”. Like
citizenship education, both global education and multicultural education vary greatly
when incorporated into the national curriculum of different countries. As global
education scholars like Pike contend, global education is “infused with distinct national
characteristics” (Pike 2000:71). Likewise Schweisfurth (2006: 42) argues that education
that aims to develop global perspectives in learners is a “distinctly culture based
exercise.”

As Michael Byram points out, the strengths of education for intercultural competence in a
foreign language lie in the critical comparative analysis of ‘other’ cultures and ‘ours’. On
the other hand, the weakness may be seen in the lack of focus on action in the world. The
weaknesses of citizenship education, might thus be called its lack of criticality of ‘our’
cultures and the limitation to a national perspective. Citizenship education attempts to
educate ‘good citizens’, which implies a certain degree of conformity. On the other hand,
the strengths of citizenship education are its focus on action in the world, and on action
which takes place now. (cf. Byram 2006 and Byram 2008)

In fact, the danger of ideological shortcomings must not be underestimated. Both

relativist and universalist positions have to be critically evaluated in a context that may
sometimes seem to overemphasize the potential of global education as a common
denominator besides cultural and allegedly culture-specific aspects of learning. As Hilary
Landorf (2009) points out, the future of the global dimension in education might need to
be defended against reproaches of cultural relativism. This certainly requires the
development of a philosophy of global education and makes it worthwhile to consider the
challenges for teaching and generally for education, as Elizabeth Heilman positively puts
it:

Globalisation, which increases the moral reach of human concern, has the
potential to increase the critical, imaginative, and ethical dimensions of our
education and our capacities and dispositions to respond to our world
(Heilman 2009:46).

However, despite worldwide endeavours to implement intercultural and global

perspectives of citizenship in English language teaching there are some major challenges.

25

－ 25 －
Language Teacher Education Vol.4 No.2, August 10, 2017

In fact, the “global citizen” still seems to be an unknown species for many and for some
even rather wishful thinking than a realistic goal for the EFL Classroom.
Challenges and chances for the future might be seen in three major fields:
1. The extreme diversity in terminology: diverse national curricula and
heterogeneous approaches to various dimensions of global learning and
citizenship education exist side by side and need to be more carefully sorted.
2. The issue of evaluation and assessment: the question whether the global
dimension in learning can be put to a test, whether a global awareness may be
evaluated at all and – in the long run – might be implemented as a competence in
foreign language learning needs to be thoroughly discussed.
3. The normative character of the concept: an unquestioned perception of the global
dimension as positive and educationally desirable requires more theorizing.
Whether “global” is automatically good may be as disputable as the question who
defines the concept of “citizen” and from which cultural context.

Educational concepts suited to the particular circumstances of various cultures in the

pursuit of shared development goals might be crucial in the future and deserve to be an
integral part of foreign language teaching. Universally relevant topics of cultural learning
– both in local and global dimensions – are likely to enrich EFL Classroom worldwide
and in versatile ways.
References

Andreotti, Vanessa de Oliveira/Lynn Mario T.M. de Souza (eds.) (2012). Postcolonial

Perspectives on Global Citizenship Education. New York/London: Routledge.
Byram, M. (2006). Developing a concept of intercultural citizenship. In G. Alred, M.
Byram & M. Fleming (Eds.), Education for intercultural citizenship : concepts and
comparisons (pp. 109-129). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Byram, M. (2008). From Foreign Language Education to Education for Intercultural
Citizenship. Essays and Reflections. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Byram, Michael/Parmenter, Lynn (2015). Global Citizenship. In J. Bennett (Ed.). SAGE
Encyclopedia of Intercultural Competence. London: SAGE.
Cates, K. (2004). “Becoming a global teacher: Ten steps to an international classroom”.
The Language Teacher 28(7), 31-35.
Council for Cultural Co-operation, Education Committee, Modern Languages Division,
Strasbourg (2001). The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Heilman, Elizabeth E. (2009). Terrains of Global and Multicultural Education: What is
Distinctive, Contested, and Shared? In: Kirkwood-Tucker, Toni F. (ed.) (2009):

26

－ 26 －
 Language Teacher Education Vol.4 No.2, August 10, 2017

Visions in Global Education. The Globalization of Curriculum and Pedagogy in

Teacher Education and Schools. Perspectives from Canada, Russia, and the United
States. New York: Peter Lang Publishing, 25-46.
Ho, Li-Cheng (2009). Global Multicultural Citizenship Education: A Singapore
Experience. The Social Studies November 2009, 285-293.
Kirkwood, Toni F. (2001). Our Global Age Requires Global Education: Clarifying
Definitional Ambiguities. Social Studies 92(1), 10-15.
Kubanek-German, (2005). “Global English and Global Education“. The Globalisation
of English and the English Language in the Classroom. Ed. Claus Gnutzmann.
Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag, 245-258.
Kramsch, Claire (1998). Language and Culture. Oxford University Press.
Kultusministerkonferenz. (2016). Orientierungsrahmen für den Lernbereich "Globale
Entwicklung im Unterricht". Berlin: Cornelsen.
Lütge, C. (ed.) (2015). Global Education in English Language Teaching. Münster: LIT.
Pashby, K. (2012). Questions for global citizenship education in the context of the “new
imperialism”: For whom, by whom? In V. Andreotti & L.M.De Souza
(Eds.),Postcolonial perspectives on global citizenship education. London/ New York:
Routledge.
Pashby, Karen (2015). Conflations, possibilities, and forecloures: Global citizenship
education in a multicultural context. Curriculum Inquiry, 45(4), 345-366.
Pennycook, Alastair (2007). Global Englishes and Transcultural Flows. London / New
York: Routledge.
Pike, Graham (2000). Global Education and National Identity: In Pursuit of Meaning.
Theory into Practice 39(2), 64-73.
Osler, A., Starkey, H. (2015). "Education for cosmopolitan citizenship: A framework
for language learning” Argentinian Journal of Applied Linguistics 3.2, 30.
Porto, M., Byram, M. (2015). “A curriculum for action in the community and
intercultural citizenship in higher education.” Language, Culture and Curriculum,
DOI: 10.1080/07908318.2015.1087555.
Porto, M. (2014). “Foreign language teaching and education for intercultural citizenship.”
English language teaching in the post-methods era: Selected papers from the 39th
FAAPI Conference. Eds. Banegas, D. L.; López-Barrios, M., Porto, M.; Soto, M. A.
Santiago del Estero: Asociación de Profesores de Inglés de Santiago del Estero.
(example: Green Kidz)
Schweisfurth, Michele (2006). Education for Global Citizenship: Teacher Agency and
Curricular Structure in Ontario Schools. Educational Review 58(1), 41-50.
Tye, Kenneth A. (ed.) (1999). Global Education: A Worldwide Movement. Orange, CA:
Independence Press.

27

－ 27 －
Language Teacher Education Vol.4 No.2, August 10, 2017

UNESCO (2002). Education for Sustainability. From Rio to Johannesburg: Lessons

Learnt for a Decade of Commitment.
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0012/001271/127100e.pdf (26/03/2015)

28

－ 28 －