Global Education and Critical Thinking: A Necessary Symbiosis to Educate for Critical Global Citizenship

1 Introduction

Global Citizenship Education (GCE) in recent years stresses the need to create critical citizens to go beyond putting themselves in the situation suffered by people living in impoverished countries; that is, it is intended that Critical GCE – or for social transformation – instructs literate people who think critically and act to transform society through dialogue and respect (Bosio & Waghid, 2022; País & Costa, 2020; Torres & Bosio, 2020).

Now, what is scientific-critical literacy? The concept of scientific literacy has several interpretations, such as Bybee (1996) points out four types of scientific literacy: nominal, functional, conceptual–processual, and multidimensional; Hurd’s (1998) notion, understanding it as a civic competence should develop the ability to think rationally about social, political, economic, or personal issues. Scientific literacy is linked to the development of Critical Thinking (CT) and is understood as the civic competence necessary to think rationally about socioeconomic or personal issues; therefore, a literate person can: differentiate ideas, analyze data, and use scientific knowledge, appreciate the various perspectives (environmental, socioeconomic, and political) from which a problem can be faced, analyze information, apply scientific knowledge, make decisions, and act to solve complex situations (Anderson, 2019; Tenreiro-vieira & Vieira, 2013).

Educational centers should be aware of the importance of educating literate people who have a global and contextualized vision of social reality. However, this is not usually the case because schools tend to transmit content in a decontextualized and fragmented manner by subject; this results in ending up leaving aside the conflicts that occur in the world and that affect, in one way or another, the daily lives of students (De Castro, 2013; Maithreyi, Prabha, & Viknesh, 2022). This idea is reflected in the International Manifesto on the GCE elaborated by Oxfam (2008), which states that educational processes are related to the “growing complexity of the social, economic and political processes of the world in which we live, […] the school continues to be organized today according to an inefficient educational model that does not always respond to the challenges of our contemporaneity” (Oxfam, 2008, p. 4).

The undeniable role of educational institutions in transforming society from a critical perspective has been one of the topics of pedagogical debates since the end of the twentieth century (Aubert, Duque, Fisas, & Valls, 2004; Balls, 2021; Hodorovská & Rankovová, 2023). Several authors of great pedagogical relevance defend critical pedagogy: Apple (2000, 2002), Dewey (1938), Freire (1967, 1970), Giroux (1980, 1997), Kincheloe (2008), Macedo (1994), or Willis (1988). Among them, it is worth highlighting Giroux (1997) who understands critical pedagogy as an “ethical project with roots in critical theory, so that it incorporates both a vision of how society should be constructed and a theory of how current society exploits, dehumanizes and denigrates certain groups of people” (Scott, 2007, p. 103).

For his part, Freire (1997a,b) does not conceive of an education that does not promote training in values and affirms that the approach to educational reality must be carried out critically in order to transform it and also achieve a change in citizenship. In agreement with this author, Dewey (1938, 1995) defends that from education, people should be trained to understand the need to act to transform social reality (Feinberg & Torres, 2014). For this reason, critical education is constantly evolving to adapt to the changes occurring in the world, and therefore, from the educational field, it should never “lose sight of the fact that its fundamental concern is human suffering” (Kincheloe, 2008, p. 40).

Currently, critical pedagogy continues to develop from a similar perspective, seeking an understanding of both the world and the educational system that does not focus solely on the mere acquisition of content. Post-critical or post-modern authors (Astolfi, 1999; Morín, 1987, 2000) are situated under this perspective and not only promote renovating currents at the curricular level or the acquisition of knowledge but also emphasize the need to move to action. In this sense, Astolfi (1999) points out that “learning is not only increasing the “stock” of knowledge, but also […] transforming the ways of conceiving the world” (Astolfi, 1999, p. 65). Another of the postmodern pedagogues mentioned earlier is Morín (1987, 2000), who speaks of complex thinking and indicates a “primordial need to learn to contextualize and, better said, to globalize; that is, to situate knowledge in its organized whole” (Morín, 2000, p. 61).

These ideas, which underlie Morin’s approach and those of the referent authors in critical and post-critical pedagogy mentioned above, are reflected in the notion of Critical GCE in current research and in the urgency of moving towards the development of global citizens who think critically (Dill & Zambrana, 2020; Santamaría-Cárdaba, Martínez-Scott, & Vicente-Mariño, 2021). Therefore, Critical GCE seeks to go beyond sensitizing people by promoting the need to act and acquire knowledge in a contextualized manner favoring CT so that everyone understands his or her role in the global society.

2 CT: Key to Global Citizenship

CT is essential in education for global citizenship, but for what reasons? What are the characteristics of CT and why are they related to Critical GCE? This section provides answers to these questions, and therefore, before trying to define CT, it is necessary to highlight some of the most relevant ideas on this issue: 1) thinking carries with it the assimilation of content because we always think about something; 2) thinking is the most valuable way in which people assimilate knowledge through 3 operations: perception, acquisition, and retention; 3) obtaining new knowledge is only possible thanks to the inference capacity of our thinking, which initially starts from the notions already acquired.

There are multiple conceptions of what CT is due to the fact that it is an issue present in various academic fields, but none is universally accepted (Paul & Elder, 2002; Philley, 2005; Tenreiro-Vieira & Vieira, 2013). This lack of consensus leads to the consideration of all notions about CT which encourages Delphi studies on the definition of this concept (Facione, 1990). Table 1 shows the definitions proposed by the most relevant authors: Beyer (1985), Ennis (1985, 1987, 1996), Facione (1990, 2007), Halpern (1998, 2006, 2014), Kurfiss (1988), Lipman (1998), McPeck (1981), Paul (1993, 2005) or Paul and Elder (2002, 2003), among others.

After observing the definitions given above, a question arises: is CT considered a skill or a way of thinking and a set of capabilities? If attention is paid to the above definitions, it is possible to understand which notion of CT is defended by each author; specifically, CT as a skill can be seen in the definitions of Beyer (1985), Halpern (1998, 2006, 2014) and McPeck (1981). However, in the idea of CT as a way of thinking and set of skills is found in the definitions of Ennis (1985, 1987, 1996), Facione (1990, 2007), Franco et al. (2017), Paul (1993, 2005), Paul and Elder (2002, 2003), Saiz (2017, 2018), Solbes and Torres (2012), and Tamayo et al. (2016). However, not all definitions of CT can be framed within these two perspectives as is the case of those proposed by Kurfiss (1988) and Lipman (1998).

Based on the above definitions, it is possible to appreciate traits in common among them and some allusion to the dimensions of CT, which are: knowledge, norms, dispositions, and capabilities (Vieira, 2018). Beyer (1985), Ennis (1985, 1987, 1996), and Lipman (1992, 1998) refer to the capabilities dimension in their definitions by conceiving CT as the ability to analyze information to rely only on reliable sources and to establish reasoned conclusions. Like these authors, Facione (1990, 2007) adds to the performance of information analysis the skills of interpreting, evaluating, and drawing inferences to make informed judgments. For his part, Halpern (1998, 2006, 2014) states that the critical thinker must be able to solve problems and make decisions; even, Saiz (2017) points out that CT requires the ability to reason and decide to solve conflict.

Kurfiss (1988) focuses his definition on the knowledge dimension, commenting on the need to possess all possible information to be able to investigate a problem and propose hypotheses. In turn, Lipman (1998) stresses the relevance of knowing the context being studied in order to make reasoned judgments. Likewise, Paul (1993, 2005) together with Paul and Elder (2002, 2003) emphasize that CT should consist of knowing oneself to improve the quality of reasoning. Tamayo et al. (2016) propose that CT requires the acquisition of knowledge that allows one to doubt what is established as true to put all issues in doubt and thus place thinking before the need to resolve a conflict.

As McPeck (1981), Solbes and Torres (2012), and Walters (1994) warn, CT requires dispositions, i.e., a critical thinker must be sensitized and informed to act and participate responsibly in society. In this sense, the dimension related to standards is implicit in all the definitions analyzed since a critical thinker must be rigorous, precise, use reliable sources, and be responsible taking into account the social and cultural context of the problem under study. It should be noted that the definition of CT proposed by Franco et al. (2017) compiles these dimensions noting that CT integrates capacities, dispositions, knowledge, and norms to achieve making assessments, deciding, and solving problems.

In summary, the diversity of definitions provides a wide range of possibilities when it comes to understanding CT. However, if we try to synthesize all the definitions compiled, we could define CT as a way of thinking that comprises various skills to enable people to analyze any situation or problem, differentiate irrelevant information from important information, seek various explanations, establish reasoned and truthful judgments based on evidence, be able to make decisions, and act in search of the best possible solution.

3 GCE from a Critical Pedagogical Perspective

Education plays a leading role in developing CT to promote democratic citizenship that acts against inequalities and situations that cause suffering to people (Jamatia, 2022; McLaren & Kincheloe, 2008; Peach & Clare, 2017). For this reason, educational centers should enhance the critical literacy of students so that they understand the situations of injustice and contradiction present in today’s world; that is, they should develop a democratic and critical view of reality at both global and local levels to transform the world (Giroux, 2003; Jones & Manion, 2023).

The Critical GCE seeks to avoid passivity in citizenship, promoting consciences that do not accept existing inequalities and favoring their protagonist in individual and collective actions to try to curb social injustices. Therefore, the aim is to create critical global citizenship, which is why it is argued that education should promote egalitarian societies in which any type of discrimination or oppression should be sold (Leite, 2022; Melber, Bjarnesen, Lanzano, & Mususa, 2023). In addition, the training provided by schools should not be limited to the memorization of content, since practical exercises should be used to prepare people to live in today’s society (Borghi, 2012; McArthur, 2023). In other words, if the aim is to educate people who actively participate in transforming society, they must learn by doing.

Thus, if the aim is to build an active global citizenry that participates in today’s democratic society, it is imperative that people do not merely understand issues superficially and that they reflect to make informed judgments (Naiditch, 2010; Peach & Clare, 2017). As Kitts (2022) warn, critical pedagogy must be contemplated in educational curricula to be more effective for teachers and students.

However, what are the features of critical citizenship? Table 3 shows these characteristics according to Johnson and Morris (2010, 2012) who base themselves on the four objectives of citizenship education proposed by Cogan, Morris, and Print (2002): “the knowledge, skills, values, and dispositions of citizens” (p. 4).

In accordance with the above characteristics, it can be seen that education for social transformation requires citizens to know both the reasons for social inequalities and their rights and to be aware of their capacity to act on reality (Mata, Ballesteros, & Padilla, 2013). Andreotti (2006) adds, as previously mentioned, that it is essential to make students critically literate in order for them to understand social reality and North–South inequalities since critical literacy is a key dimension for Critical GCE.

This same author, after studying the arguments on global citizenship proposed by Dobson (2005, 2006) and analyzing the effects of colonialism on North–South relations according to Spivak (2003, 2004), made a comparison between the soft GCE and the critical GCE. In this sense, recent studies such as those by Andreotti (2022), Bosio and Waghid (2023), Giroux and Bosio (2021), McLaren and Bosio (2022), or Stein, Andreotti, Suša, Ahenakew, and Čajková (2022) analyze from a decolonial perspective the importance of educating people who question the information they receive and can think critically from the perspective of GCE.

Understanding Critical GCE in the same way as DeLeon (2006), as both consider that advocates of critical pedagogy understand education as an act of public character through which they seek to “transform schools towards the pursuit of social justice […] and use education to generate social change and empower educational actors” (DeLeon, 2006, p. 73). This vision of education as a means to transform society permeates the current GCE, since the Critical GCE requires that people possess the ability to think critically to understand the causes of inequality and social injustices so that they can act to transform society and defend human rights.

The critical citizenship referred to in this study must possess a high level of social responsibility, think critically, and be aware of global problems. This same concept of critical global citizenship is used by Oxley and Morris (2013) to refer to people who focus on reducing inequalities and actively advocating for social justice; likewise, these authors include the notion of social global citizenship to allude to citizenship that is grounded in critical and postcolonial ideas. However, Jooste and Heleta (2017) use another different denomination when referring to critical global citizenship as “scholarly” citizenship, which they differentiate from “closed-minded” citizenship being the one that does not care about people living in other areas of the world or possessing another religious ideology.

Today’s changing society makes it necessary for people to acquire various competencies in order to act appropriately in complex situations, and the way forward is CT. Therefore, the formation of critical global citizenship carries with it the development of CT by focusing on “inequality and oppression, critiquing the role of current power relations and economic agendas” (Goren & Yemini, 2017, p. 171). Authors such as Johnson and Morris (2012) already announced that CT was directly related to critical pedagogy; in this line, Lipman (2003) and Moon (2008) emphasize that the acquisition of new knowledge and the ability to make a judgment are two key aspects of CT and conscientization because “it involves the discovery that one is oppressed and the judgment that such hegemonic power exists in society” (Johnson & Morris, 2012, p. 286).

4 Conclusion

The GCE that is currently emerging seeks the formation of global and critical citizens, giving rise to a union between the characteristics of the GCE and those of CT, which configures the Critical GCE. Figure 1 illustrates the convergence between the definition and dimensions of both issues; specifically, the definition of GCE and the dimensions proposed by Ortega (2007, 2008) are included, and a definition of CT is shown together with the dimensions established by Vieira (2018), and the result of this union is captured in the definition of Critical GCE, and the dimensions proposed by Johnson and Morris (2010).

Figure 1

Critical GCE as an area of confluence between GCE and TC. Note: Own elaboration.

As can be seen in the previous figure, the vision of Critical GCE already implies the need to think critically and has dimensions similar to those of CT, since, although it does not have a dimension called thinking criteria, all of them are implicit in the dimensions of Critical GCE.

In conclusion, critical global citizenship needs not only to have solid training in GCE but also to develop its CT as a necessary symbiosis to understand society from a critical perspective, thus aiming to act against injustices and promote a change towards a more sustainable and just society.