Physical Education as a Channel for Global Citizenship - Coursework Example

Physical Education as a Channel for Global Citizenship: A Critical Appraisal Introduction This study aims to conduct a critical review current literature and field reports for evidence of the value of physical education in advancing global citizenship. It will examine the value of PE as tool for global citizenship, beginning with a description of the scope and implications of global citizenship and physical education, and exploring available literature concerning the viability of PE as a channel for transmitting global citizenship values to learners. The implications of Global Citizenship The Global Citizens’ Initiative defines as global citizen as “someone who identifies with being part of an emerging world community and whose actions contribute to building this community’s values and practices” (Israel, 2012:1). Integral in this definition are two assumptions: (1) that there exists such a phenomenon as an emerging world economy that is cognizable to all; and (2) that such a community possesses an evolving set of values and practices. Global citizenship is viewed as having evolved from ‘cosmopolitanism,’ a concept introduced by ancient philosophers such as Socrates and Diogenes. According to Socrates, to be cosmopolitan is to extend the collective sense of ethical responsibility outward beyond the limited local jurisdictions of the community, “to the universe and to all humanity” (Mullens & Cuper, 2012:42). This view or global citizenship was seen to be non-political and consistent with one’s local political affinities; this is evident in Socrates submission to the questionable death sentence to which he was subjected as a citizen of Athens. A contrasting view was entertained by Diogenes of Sinope, who proclaimed his disdain of what he perceived to be “the hypocrisy and dishonesty” of his fellow citizens, and renounced his citizenship to instead proclaim himself “a citizen of the world” (Schattle, 2009:4). Ancient Roman Stoics, however, distinguished between citizenship ties based on “the accident of our birth” and citizenship as membership in a higher, universal political community, thereby enabling an individual to lead a “dual civic life” – that is, complying with the obligations of citizens to the state while simultaneously serving the calls of the larger, human community or “cosmopolis” (Schattle, 2009:4). One of the more recent displays of cosmopolitanism or global citizenship was initiated by the 1990 demolition of the Berlin Wall, the resultant opening of the Eastern Bloc countries and the dissolution of the Soviet Union (Schattle, 2009). Moving forward, other events brought into sharper focus the concept of the cosmopolis as people’s common humanity; these include the events of 9/11, the threat of terrorism, greater global economic interdependence, and technological advances that heightened people’s interconnectivity worldwide (Godrej, 2011; Mullens & Cooper, 2012; Ramsbotham, et al., 2011). Today, global citizenship is associated with responding to world-wide environmental factors and the empathy developed among different people as a result of a greater consciousness in our common humanity (Nissen, 2011; Samuelsson & Kaga, 2008). The values that increasingly define the international community include “human rights, environmental protection, religious pluralism, gender equity, sustainable worldwide economic growth, poverty alleviation, prevention of conflicts between countries, elimination of weapons of mass destruction, humanitarian assistance and preservation of cultural diversity” (Israel, 2012:1). Global citizenship, in its broad perspective, is therefore defined according to its varied aspects. Global citizenship as a choice and a way of thinking; in contrast with national citizenship which is largely an accident of birth, global citizenship is a voluntary association that signifies a commonality of thinking and living in multiple cross-cutting communities (i.e., cities, regions, states, nations, and international collectives (Schattle, 2009). It is practiced through engagement with global issues or with different cultures in a local setting, reinforcing a link between the global and the local, according to an individual’s volition. Global citizenship is also defined as self-awareness and awareness of others (Maringe & Foskett, 2012; Schattle, 2008). Educators are aware that the difficulty of teaching intercultural understanding is in enabling their students to transcend their own cultural perceptions; thus, the first step to the awareness of others is the awareness and understanding of oneself (Green, 2012). Global citizenship is also the practice of international empathy. Intercultural competence is a primary aim of higher global education; educators help their students address issues from multiple perspectives and “move deftly among cultures – sometimes navigating their own multiple cultural identities, sometimes moving out to experience unfamiliar cultures” (Green, 2012:2). Global citizenship is also viewed as the cultivation of principled decision-making. This means that global citizenship requires an awareness of the interdependence of individuals, social groups, and systems, and the sense of responsibility that proceeds from this awareness. Ethical decision-making in the context of these interdependencies necessitates the formation of principles by which the decision-maker is compelled to abide to maintain fairness and equity (McIntyre, 2003). Finally, global citizenship means active engagement in the social and political life of one’s community. A connection is felt by global citizens to their various communities, however they may be conceived, and converts this connection to participation. Global citizenship becomes evident in practices that include making personal choices (e.g. choosing devices and methods that are environmentally sustainable), exercising one’s right of suffrage, volunteering for civic duties, engaging in advocacies, and political activism. The individual becomes concerned with issues such as poverty, the environment, health, trade, and protection of human rights. “Participation is the action dimension of global citizenship” (Green, 2012:2). The scope of Physical Education (PE) In the field of education, there is a perceptible and definitive trend towards the promotion of global citizenship and internationalisation. Three worldwide phenomena which reinforce the need for schools and universities to foster internationalisation and global citizenship in their curricula are: (1) students shall have continuous and numerous encounters between and among cultures; (2) cultural interrelationships exhibit complexities that have both positive and negative implications; and (3) as the world economy moves beyond being predominantly industrial, graduates will increasingly require cognitive skills that include methodical approaches to inquiry, understanding and expression that are relevant to an information-based economy (Huitt, 2013; Mullens & Cooper, 2012). The UNESCO has affirmed its commitment to quality physical education (QPE), through its identification of QPE policy development through the endorsement of the International Council of Sport Science and Physical Education (ICSSPE). The scope and nature of QPE has been defined in very few countries, prompting UNESCO to define and provide benchmarks to apply to all countries. QPE should be conceptualised in the context of interrelated strategies that attract young people to “the joy and pleasure of physical activity so as to foster an active healthy lifestyle over the full-life span.” More than this, QPE should provide “personally meaningful and socially and culturally relevant experiences,” from early childhood education to the upper secondary level (UNESCO, 2015:76). The benchmarks for the curriculum are articulated as follows: (UNESCO, 2015:76) Equality and inclusion are necessarily to be embedded and equal opportunities promoted in the PE curriculum. There must be a commitment to developing the needs of those with special requirements through specific programmes designed for them. The curriculum must be formatively and developmentally based, to be sequenced progressively through clearly defined aims and specific learning outcomes. It must promote the development of physical literacy, as well as cooperation and healthy competition among peers. While competition is encouraged, the curriculum must also recognise the range of differences existing among learners, and in this context provide diverse and challenging activities relevant to all learners, the school, and the community. The community must promote the knowledge, understanding, and skills necessary for the learners to maintain a healthy, active lifestyle throughout their life. This includes their development across the various learning domains, including the physical, lifestyle, affective, social, and cognitive aspects, while providing them opportunities to enhance core skills including leadership, communication, and teamwork. Finally, the curriculum should stress the role of PE in promoting the core values of respect, tolerance, and fair play, as well as the ideal of global citizenship pursuant to the Post-2015 agenda (UNESCO, 2015). In fine, the vision of education in the post-2015 development agenda should reflect two basic principles: (1) the right to quality education as a fundamental human right, integrated into the normative frameworks and institutionalised in national legislations of all countries; and (2) the regard for education as a public good, which the state as custodian protects and ensures, with particular attention to the promotion of equality. While the government stands as steward to this vision of education, its delivery is the collective responsibility of all sectors, including families, communities, civil society organisations, and business (UNESCO, 2013). PE as channel for global citizenship As part of the school curriculum, PE is included in the educational mandate to build in global citizenship into its courses. The question therefore revolves around the effectiveness of PE as a channel for developing global citizenship. Thompson (2012) challenges this perspective. According to her, schooling (PE included) is “a national project and a practice of the state. Citizenship in this environment, therefore, can be viewed as a political process preparing young people for adulthood (Gordon, 2006)” (Thompson, 2012:1). She also quotes Barr (2005) in describing citizenship as a formation of social, political, economic, and linguistic identities” within the context of the state, including particular attitudes and values; “Citizenship then embodies the ideals that represent what a citizen ought to be and how he or she ought to live in order to enjoy the rights that the states bestow on their citizens” (Barr, 2005:56). Thompson and Barr raise valid issues: education policies and programmes are not planned and implemented in a political vacuum, but are rather shaped by the context of the culture, ideologies, and values of the country whose government creates the programmes and policies. This poses a challenge to the concept of global citizenship, which is premised on the concepts and values transcending national cultures and politics. The effectiveness of citizenship education in general has been called into question by experts, even among developed countries. In England, for instance, the government has made it a policy in the past decade to spearhead citizen education as the principal means by which racial equality may be promoted, community cohesion enhanced, and violent extremism prevented. Since 2008, a new official emphasis was placed on identity and diversity. Despite these efforts, young people have not been prepared to live harmoniously in diversity, nor is it evident that they have been imbued with the critical perspectives of race and racism that the state had intended (Osler, 2009). This raises the issue as to whether the state’s formal educational system, of which PE is a part, is the appropriate tool by which the youth may be educated in the value system required for global citizenship. The issues surrounding PE are also influenced by parallel issues in international competitive sports. There are numerous incidents in international sports where clashes occur between national cultures and the sport’s international guidelines. An example is the issue of the ban on the hijab, the headscarf worn by Muslim women, in certain sports, one of which is jiu-jitsu. Caroline De Lazzer, coach of the UAE women’s jiu-jitsu team, has taken to initiative to campaign for a lift of the ban on the hijab, in view of the victory of Shamsa Hassan, the first Emirati woman to win the gold medal in the Abu Dhabi World Professional Jiu-Jitsu Championship. At the time of writing, Emirati women have not yet had the privilege of competing abroad; to do so, the International Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu Federation (IBJJF) must first lift its hijab ban. The rationale behind the ban is the alleged danger it poses to wearers of the hijab, which may be grabbed inadvertently during competition. However, De Lazzer argues that while the IBJJF feels that wearing a T-shirt or a garment under the kimonos (the traditional uniform for martial art sports) is dangerous for men, they do allow it for women. Drawing a parallel between the hijab and the T-shirt worn under kimonos, De Lazzer argues that a safe, Velcro-opening headscarf would be safe and allow Muslim women to compete. The issue remains unresolved until the present (Passela, 2012). This situation impacts on PE where jiu-jitsu training is offered to girls, who have excelled in the sport such as in Al Reef, Abu Dhabi where girls have amassed 31 gold medals, 21 silver and 15 bronze in national and regional school competitions (Passela, 2014). Since the formal educational programmes are the product of a political process and therefore inescapably advance a political perspective, the question has been raised in academic literature whether the venue in which the PE programmes are implemented matters. A study was conducted by Dagkas and Benn (2006) wherein the experiences of young Muslim women in undergoing physical education differed between Greece and Britain. The comparative study examined the young women’s experiences with respect to dress codes, mixed-teaching and exercise during Ramadan, and whether they are allowed to comply with traditional restrictions in extra-curricular activities for cultural and religious reasons. Qualitative data were gathered in indepth interviews conducted with 24 Greek Muslim women and 20 British Muslim women. The study found that while PE has a national curriculum status and a similar rationale in both countries, the differences in cultures of formality and tradition impacted upon the experiences of the female Muslim students. The religious identity and consciousness of Islamic requirements were more pronounced among the British women than among the Greek women. The root causes of the differences appear to be traced to the differences in the women’s stages of acculturation and the historical and socio-cultural contexts in which they were living. Greek Muslims had less problematic encounters with PE than their British counterparts, apparently due to their closer assimilations to the dominant culture (Dagkas & Benn, 2006). Another concern in global citizenship in PE has to do with the training of PE teachers. Benn and Dagkas (2006) examined the tensions between UK’s state provision in physical education initial teacher training (PEITT) and Islamic requirements. Currently, the PEITT provides only for compulsory mixed-sex training, a situation which excludes Muslim women who wish to enter the teaching profession while simultaneously adhering to Islamic requirements. The study had been able to present a case study, however, where policy development enabled single-sex physical education available for Muslim women in a traditionally mixed-sex primary course (Benn & Dagkas, 2006). This exemplified the flexibility of policy development in reconciling conflicts in cultural or gender requirements as they are now institutionalised in PE teacher and education programmes. Conclusion The UNESCO policies and programmes notwithstanding, developing PE as an effective channel for instilling the values of corporate citizenship among learners still faces numerous challenges. The issues are varied, including the level of assimilation of national cultures, the regulations of international sports associations, the misalignment between the goals of educational programmes and the value systems transmitted to the young by their communities, and programmes for teacher training that are themselves contrary to the values of inclusion and diversity adhered to in global citizenship. In fine, PE curricula form part of the educational system which is a political process implemented by government, which seems to work against global citizenship which transcends politics. There are solutions to the problem in terms of policy development and the gradual evolution of society’s national cultural orientations, but this, as with all profound socio-cultural changes, will take time. References Barr, H 2005 ‘Toward a Model of Citizenship Education: Coping with Differences in Definition.’ In White, C & Openshaw R (eds.) Democracy at the Crossroads: International Perspectives on Critical Global Citizenship Education. Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books, an imprint of The Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group, Inc. Benn, T & Dagkas, S 2006 ‘Incompatible? Compulsory mixed-sex Physical Education Initial Teacher Training (PEITT) and the inclusion of Muslim women: a case-study on seeking solutions’ European Physical Education Review. 12 (2), pp. 181-200 Dagkas, S & Benn, T 2006 ‘Young Muslim women’s experiences of Islam and physical education in Greece and Britain: a comparative study.’ Sport, Education and Society, 11 (1), pp. 21-38. Godrej, F 2011 Cosmopolitan Political Thought: Method, Practice, Discipline. Oxford: Oxford University Press Gordon, T 2006 ‘Girls in education: citizenship, agency and emotions,’ Gender and Education, 18 (1) pp. 1-15 Green, MF ‘Global Citizenship: What Are We Talking About and Why Does It Matter?’ Trends and Insights for International Education Leaders. January. Retrieved 18 April 2015 from https://globalhighered.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/ti_global_citizen.pdf Huitt, WG 2013 ‘Curriculum for Global Citizenship.’ International School Magazine. Retrieved 18 April 2015 from http://edpsycinteractive.org/papers/curriculum-for-global-citizenship.pdf Israel, RC 2012 ‘What Does it Mean to be a Global Citizen?’ Kosmos Journal for Global Transformation. Spring/Summer issue. Retrieved 18 April 2015 from http://www.kosmosjournal.org/article/what-does-it-mean-to-be-a-global-citizen/ Maringe, F & Foskett, N 2012 Globalisation and Internationalization in Higher Education: Theoretical, Strategic and Management Perspectives. London: Continuum International Publishing Group. McIntyre, J 2004 Global Citizenship and Social Movements: Creating Transcultural Webs of Meaning for the New Millennium. Abingdon, Oxon: Taylor & Francis Group Mullens, JB & Cuper, PH 2012 Fostering Global Citizenship Through Faculty-led International Programs. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, Inc. Nissen, N 2011 ‘Challenging perspectives: women, complementary and alternative medicine, and social change.’ Interface: A journal for and about social movements. 3 (2), pp. 187-212 Osler, A 2009 ‘Citizenship education, democracy, and racial justice 10 years on.’ Race Equality Teaching, pp. 21-27. Trentham Books. Retrieved 18 April 2015 from https://www.academia.edu/189763/Citizenship_education_democracy_and_racial_justice_10_years_on Passela, A 2012 ‘Jiu-jitsu coach calls for lift on hijab ban.’ The National. 15 April. Retrieved 18 April 2015 from http://www.thenational.ae/sport/uae-sport/jiu-jitsu-coach-calls-for-lift-on-hijab-ban Passela, A 2014 ‘Brazilian Ferreira establishes benefit of sport to girls at Al Reef.’ The National. 14 April. Retrieved 18 April 2015 from http://www.thenational.ae/sport/jiu-jitsu/brazilian-ferreira-establishes-benefits-of-sport-to-girls-at-al-reef Ramsbotham, O; Miall, H; & Woodhouse, T 2011 Contemporary Conflict Resolution. Cambridge: Polity Press Samuelsson, IP & Kaga, Y 2008 The contribution of early childhood education to a sustainable society. Paris: UNESCO Schattle, H 2008 The Practices of Global Citizenship. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. Schattle, H 2009 ‘Chapter 1: Global Citizenship in Theory and Practice.’ In Lewin, R (ed.), The Handbook of Practice and Research Abroad: Higher Education and the Quest for Global Citizens. New York, NY: Routledge, p. 3 Thompson, K 2012 ‘Physical Education and Citizenship: More Than Just the Creation of the “Personally Responsible” Body?’ Curriculum Matters, vol. 8. Retrieved 18 April 2015 from https://www.questia.com/library/journal/1G1-316203828/physical-education-and-citizenship-more-than-just UNESCO 2013 ‘UNESCO’s vision of education in the post-2015 development agenda.’ UNESCO: Learning to Live Together. 18 March. Retrieved 18 April 2015 from http://www.unesco.org/new/en/social-and-human-sciences/themes/global-environmental-change/sv1/news/unescos_vision_on_education_in_the_post_2015_development_agenda/#.VTR1JCGqqko UNESCO 2015 Quality Physical Education: Guidelines for Policy Makers. Paris: United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization. Read More