The role of teachers.

It is undeniable that teachers play a central role in the classroom, in terms of both establishing and directing, to a large degree, the learning and relationship dynamics in the classroom. As such, this section will begin with the findings related to the attitudes and practices that teachers must possess to initiate the change towards GC education based on the characteristics established in section 4.1, implying a conscious decision to become what Henry Giroux calls a “transformative intellectual” (Mc Laren and Leonard, 2003: 58).

Teachers need to be convinced of the need to make changes in power and knowledge relationships, changes that would begin by displaying and transmitting a series of attitudes. Ultimately, the discourse and attitudes of teachers should be consistent. This rejection of traditional and vertical teaching methods is indispensable if we wish to gain access to elements of critical analysis that can be used to question pre-established believes and ideologies.

In this way, teachers evolve from being a mere “user” of the education system to proposing sets of knowledge as transformative intellectuals who, through encouraging respect and recognition of differences, help to form a generation of conscientious and critical citizens, dedicated to the change towards greater social justice. This task would mean that the teacher would have to bear a series of factors in mind. Firstly, the need to question the content that will be transmitted to students with a dual objective: to stress that knowledge is never neutral and that it is created from everyday life. Therefore, there would be no need to formulate universally applicable theories, allowing for reality to be understood in a different way. Secondly, it would imply the use of teaching methods and practices that foster creativity, nurture the ability to develop more complex reasoning and use of a range of different languages to include more people in the educational process. Lastly, a relationship would need to be established based on the students’ reality and a commitment to action driven by the question, what can/could we do? All these findings respond to the work of Freire (Mc Laren and Leonard, 2003:56) when he suggests that students should be considered as agents with the ability to change their reality insofar as they are able to understand and objectify it, while also being able to identify and challenge myths, values and behaviours that have been adopted from popular culture and internalised in our conscience.

Other findings point to the importance of the socio-affective focus that is applied by teachers. This focus is understood as a set of attitudes and actions that determine the nature and quality of relationships in the classroom. Strategies such as learning the students’ names, getting to know their likes and preferences, speaking in the plural to include themselves as part of the group, as well as debating situations and problems from a positive and constructive point of view and strong listening skills are found to be some of the key aspects in the relationships that are established. Ultimately, teachers should focus on achieving the broadest development of their students as human beings, introducing a series of emotions into their dialogue method ranging from humour and compassion to indignation. (Mc Laren and Leonard, 2003: 58)

However, a series of factors that could limit the teachers’ ability to develop their role in the classroom was also discovered. Certain levels of “complacency” among teaching staff can result in a passive response to the introduction of new educational approaches and the isolation of those practitioners who are keen to put these ideas into practice. Furthermore, the current educational model is designed to be reproductive and not transformative, thus creating a closed-off, reductionistic and homogenising education in terms of content, methods and practices.

The classroom space.

As for the findings from within the classroom, first of all it was observed that the relationship between students and teachers needs to be reconfigured. This would entail moving away from a scenario in which decisions within the classroom are made solely by the teacher, towards a relationship of shared responsibility in the learning process. In order to do so, we noted the importance of a flexible conception of the classroom space in order for it to be configured by the class as a whole. The use of horse-shoe or circular seating arrangements, which also incorporate the teacher’s desk, allows for barriers to be broken down, for the class to all see each other and work together in a more assembly-style scenario and to share resources, thus strengthening the group-work element. Furthermore, it is important that the rest of the classroom space can be dedicated to other uses that are considered necessary by the class, such as a library, games areas, etc.

As part of this reconfiguration of relationships within the classroom, research has shown that regular switching of roles, where students become “teachers” and where knowledge and learning experiences are exchanged on a student-student level, is highly important. In this way, the process of learning and studying is shared more profoundly by more people, making students jointly responsible for both their own learning and that of their peers. In summary, constructing the dynamics of the learning process between all people in the classroom invites students to see the classroom as their own space, to take on shared responsibilities and, as stated by Freire (Mc Laren and Leonard, 2003: 56), allows for the school to be transformed without resorting to authoritarian relationships or the unequal distribution of power. Research has also highlighted that in these relationships within the classroom, camaraderie and not the supervision of some people by others is encouraged and different realities and cultures are accommodated by visualising them through a range of contents, methods and experiences.

These proposals imply, therefore, a series of decisions are made in the classroom that are proposed and decided through holding assemblies. These assemblies can be directed to a greater or lesser degree depending on the experience that students have of such meetings. However, in all cases, it is vital that decisions are proposed and adopted at these assemblies and that a certain level of responsibility, accountability and transparency is established among all people in the classroom.

All these initiatives focus on the act of choosing authority and reconfiguring the school in the society in which it is found, since the classroom space is the first place where the political element of the school can be visualised as it represents a place where individuals and society are constructed (Mc Laren and Leonard, 2003: 50).

Within this process of student participation in the classroom, the CIs highlighted the “added” opportunity provided by migratory processes for working on multiculturalism and GC. Today, classrooms in education centres (especially in public centres) have become spaces in which numerous nationalities and cultural realities exist side by side. This reality can contribute to visualising and working with different topics and methods by using the experiences of students and of their families. It creates an opportunity to connect diverse realities, to explore local and global issues and to deconstruct stereotypes that are counter-productive for GC (assistentialist and catastrophic perspectives of the “south”). However, we cannot ignore the “other side” of the reality of multicultural classrooms, in which various integration-related conflicts can arise. Many of these conflicts derive from a lack of material and human resources in education centres and a lack of understanding between cultures. Furthermore, certain educational policies that without the necessary resources can also lead to increased segregation in the classroom include, for example, the policy of bilingualism[3] in the Region of Valencia (RV).

Lastly, the findings from within the classroom also suggest that books and ICTs[4]should not be given pride of place in this space, since, although they are useful tools for assisting the learning process, they are not able to form the backbone or nexus of educational activity nor the theoretical component. Classroom resources and material should vary in form, origin and design in order to respond to the diverse needs that can arise at any given time.

The findings from the CI with regard to the classroom space for specific education levels are as follows. In reference to the modules taught, in the case of primary and secondary education, the official education programme stresses the compulsory nature of the subject “Citizenship Education”[5] with the aim of responding to:

The need to foster responsible citizenship in a democratic society as a channel for achieving social cohesion and a shared European identity [...] to reflect on their role within a nation, a region, a municipality and a neighbourhood, at the same time as being part of a global society (National Spanish State Gazette No. 186. Sec. I).

In light of this approach, it could be assumed that the above-mentioned module is an opportunity within the classroom to work on GC. However, one piece of evidence that arose in both CI experiences is that this subject, depending on how it is delivered, is not a useful space, since it is introduced as a stand-alone module in the fifth year of primary education and the second year of Compulsory Secondary Education (ESO [in Spanish])[6]. It would have to go much further; transmitting the intended values through actions, teaching practices and participatory processes, and by taking on responsibilities, tasks and group activities in which the whole classroom or centre can participate. Therefore, it is advisable to avoid one-off occasions at set times in the academic year and instead to understand the values that we wish to transmit as ingredients that are integrated in, flow throughout and form a key part of the school curriculum.

However, and despite being aware of these limiting factors and requirements in both research groups, the ability to establish links between local and global contexts within the classroom has emerged in a number of occasions as a complex task, since, among other, concepts of GC it is neither so obvious nor simple to define.

Another proven aspect, which affects the classroom space in universities, points to the lack of variety in teaching methods and learning strategies that are employed by educators. This fact is most obvious in technical degrees where the use of diverse languages and methods of communication that would take on board avenues such as creativity or the visual arts is practically non-existent, and the learning process is largely orientated towards the acquisition of purely instrumental skills. These focal points would reinforce visions of “banking education”, leading to relationships in which teachers deposit a range of “unique” knowledge in their “ignorant” students, and where dialogical, democratic and socialising elements do not form part of the educational process.

However, the inquiries have identified that this reality could be transformed, to a certain degree, if the university classroom is considered as an autonomous space, where the faculty is free to assert a certain degree of independence in order to apply different focal points, methods and teaching practices and to teach “in another way”. And if, in addition, the presence of students of other nationalities and cultural realities is taken advantage of, their experiences can provide a multicultural vision and a critical attitude towards each student’s own language and knowledge base. Ultimately, classroom space should be used to promote a critical thought process that allows links to be established between the contents of different subjects and diverse local and global realities, and to appeal to the need to clearly set out (at certain times) an ethical and political stance with regard to student involvement in the development of profession activity.

The centre as a whole.

In order to analyse the set of educational practices and approaches that could contribute to the creation of GC from within the education centre, a distinction must be made between the different cycles that occurred in the two CIs. However, and as the first findings to be seen at all education levels, the inquiries highlighted the importance of and need for explicitly stating in the curriculum[7] the attributes that the students are set to gain (since this is the tool for organising work in the centres) and to create genuine access to participation processes for the whole education community; understood as the students, the centre’s teaching and non-teaching staff and the students’ parents.

In the case of early childhood, primary, secondary and training-cycle education centres, staff meetings have been noted as important organisational structures with great potential for GC work. In order to realise this potential, the management and the teaching staff of the different year groups and cycles must work together to establish the methods, targets, attributes and focal points that will be used in educational activities and to define those of the training projects in centres that integrate GC and DE in their curriculum.

Another aspect of GC work that was found to be fundamental is the development of group activities between students from different year groups. Some examples of these would be: general assemblies of delegates where representatives from different year groups put forward proposals, complaints and initiatives that have been drafted in class and that affect the entire centre; group “management” of the playground and shared areas in terms of the distribution of space, creation of games between different year groups, timetables, etc.; the shared use of the centre’s resources and materials; the presentation of student petitions to various institutions (town councils, education ministries, etc.) regarding needs, initiatives or complaints that affect the entire centre. This type of initiative can contribute to students accepting more responsibility for both their own and the collective process of coexistence in the centre. It also encourages students to work with the rest of the staff to construct the dynamics of the centre, considering it as their own.

And by opening the centre to the concept of full participation, the role played by the students’ parents (formally through the AMPA[8] or informally) is very important for the design of a group agenda. In light of this, school boards should move beyond the merely advisory and bureaucratic functions that they are often given to focus on documenting and establishing a dialogue about real concerns and needs. At the same time, it would be interesting to set up other mechanisms that would provide knowledge of the contexts in which students find themselves and live so that decisions can be made in a more cooperative manner, with a greater number of voices and so that they are adapted to the realities of the families. This last aspect is especially relevant in the case of families from the different cultures and nationalities that are found in the centre, since a mutual lack of understanding between the centre and the family can sometimes arise with a negative impact on coexistence and learning processes.

 

In the case of university education, educational projects and approaches to GC work struggle against the unfavourable situation of existing within a formal and pyramid-like structure. This structure is relatively closed to modification and teaching innovations, does not allow for much participation in decision making and can be rather undemocratic. With this reality in mind, it is clear that the possibility of working on GC in universities is determined by the spaces fought for and created by lecturers and other university staff that are interested in the reflection and application of GC within their institution. An example of these initiatives are the teaching innovation groups that include lecturers, research staff and students from various disciplines and that reflect on issues, focal points and changes in the relationships of knowledge production and exchange within universities. Certain spaces in universities have also been highlighted in which GC principles form one of the key pillars of the training, such as, for example, Master’s programmes in Development Cooperation and Humanities. However, it is vital that these experiences are shared with and extended to the rest of the university community in order to act as “multipliers” within the institution, and to address the need to introduce comprehensive humanist themes into technical or “science” degrees.

Contexts and interactions.

In order to conclude the presentation of educational practices and approaches aimed at the creation of GC, the work, interactions and strategies in the different contexts of the educational realities that have participated in the inquiries will be discussed.

For all the education levels that took part in the inquiries, networking acquires special importance in contexts such as the current situation where the education sector is under strain for a number of reasons: a lack of human and material resources, the increased mobility and rotation of teaching staff, the fragmentation of the educational community, the rigidity or inertia of the structure of educational institutions or the lack of connection between institutions involved in education (families, centres, NGDOs, governments) and non-integrating, diverse and multicultural spaces, among others.

Therefore, from a strategic point of view, networking allows us to make connections between global and local contexts and to unite democratic struggles gaining power and enhancing their impact, to foster cooperative work and new anti-hegemonic ideas, to exchange knowledge and perspectives and to strengthen the role of trainers by removing the feeling of solitude and isolation.

In the case of early childhood, primary and secondary education centres, and those offering training courses, certain networking initiatives have been introduced. These initiatives include cultural exchanges through theatre, participation in “Trobades en Valencià”[9] and music, as well as activities outside of school hours that are open to the entire educational community, making local connections while providing a global dimension. The inquiries have also highlighted Inter-centre[10] projects in collaboration with municipal councils that maintain correspondence by letter/email with other centres, on both a national and international level but especially with countries in the South. This correspondence allows for information, concerns and knowledge to be exchanged in a more discrete manner, responding to the genuine concerns of the participants and breaking stereotypes.

It is also considered highly valuable to foster spaces for collaboration between teachers, parents and NGDOs, which aim to update educational material as a group by responding to real needs and to encourage schools to participate as another civil society agent in political petitions and proposals, among others.

However, it is universities that have emerged as a space in which networking presents a fantastic opportunity for GC work. Academic networks, according to current initiatives (such as the European Higher Education Area) incentivise mobility, create spaces for collaboration and include bodies[11] that are able to enhance the awareness and training of teachers and education professionals.

Based on this “advantage”, university institutions may not only establish networks with academic institutions in the North and the South in order to exchange experiences and train teachers “from” and “in” different realities, but also position themselves as a bridge between theoretical and practical realms, fostering spaces for collaboration between academic and non-academic networks in order to consider day-to-day life experiences (schools, institutes, NGDOs etc.). The experience of the CIs reveals that university teaching staff believe creating links with people from outside the academic world favours contact with GC, since it “forces” academics to interact with practical elements and to revise content, methods, teaching practices and educational approaches. An example of this type of link are the CI experiences that are presented in this study uncovering the need for universities “to look to schools for inspiration” in the integration of other languages, thought processes and focal points, and to encourage research in other spaces outside the university.

However, these networks are normally created by individuals or small groups within universities, thus highlighting the need to involve more people within these institutions in this task, as well as breaking away from the trend of establishing relationships and exchanges with universities and “elite” academies in the North that are often aligned with restrictive and “hidden” curricula[12].

NGDOs as agents for GC work.

The findings that, according to the NGDOs, are worth highlighting largely respond to two questions: the first focuses on these organisations’ collaboration with education centres, while the second responds to these organisations’ need for processes of reflection and socio-political approaches.

With regard to the collaboration of these organisations with education centres, it was found that teachers and the education community in general would need to play a more active role in the creation of the material used by NGDOs for GC work. The aim is for this material to respond to the real-life needs and situations in education centres. In addition, it is clear that a more continual collaboration is required on the part of universities for the integration into their curricula of subjects such as human rights, gender or inclusion, as well as processes of reflection on these topics and the potential role of university institutions as political agents for social change.

With regard to the existence of processes of reflection and socio-political approaches of NGDOs, the findings of the CIs suggest a need for these organisations to take on a “social movement” role. This “new” role would entail the opening up of these organisations to the rest of civil society and the involvement of NGDOs in citizen petitions and requests. In order for this to occur, NGDOs would need to dedicate more time to reflecting on their own practice, since the current dynamics of bureaucracy and the search for funding do not make this possible.

The key to achieving these two purposes lies in networking with social movements, education agents, etc., revealing itself as a fundamental and indispensable aspect of NGDOs. These alliances would allow for the generation of spaces for reflection and exchange of ideas, experiences and resources that could contribute to the development of a more diverse GC that is more grounded in the realities of the “North and South”.

However, and despite the importance of networks as spaces for work and the exchange of experiences and ideas, it is clear that, more often than not, these spaces are created through people-to-people connections rather than the strength of pre-existing networks.

4.3. On the Cooperative Inquiry processes

This section concludes with a presentation of the findings of the two CI processes, focusing on their practical application and how these experiences can in themselves become GC drivers.

With regard to the methods, it is paramount that the task of facilitating and the people in charge of leading the process are in tune with the CI methodology required throughout the process, ensuring that control and freedom within the group are applied in the right proportion. This aspect is very important when considering that, in the first place, the inquiry question must be specific, related to current practices and should avoid issues that are too pretentious and that are unrelated to the practices of the group. All conversations and dynamics must be permanently guided in order to establish links with the daily practices and to relate the activities with the inquiry question so that it may be answered. In addition, and in order not to lose the “thread” of the inquiry, it is advisable to allow no more than two months between meetings.

Another significant aspect in terms of the methods is directly related to the activities and the need for these to be flexible since it can be difficult to coordinate the schedules of all participants.

With regard to the capacity to generate GC, the groups really valued the opportunity presented by the CI process itself to listen to other sectors, find out about other realities, learn with more people and work as part of a team. Moreover, these experiences help to eliminate baseless preconceptions and prejudices about the agents and functions of the education system. The inquiries have been a positive experience in terms of developing a more open approach to listening and, in some cases, an exchange of roles. This process has encouraged some of the participants of this group to start or continue other research projects, sharing the experiences and findings from this CI, both in terms of methods and content, with other people in a diverse range of initiatives.

Likewise, it has produced important reflections on GC that have, in turn, generated interest in this topic and in other related issues, prompting greater clarification and understanding of concepts and a re-reading and questioning of personal and professional practices. Therefore, through a new vision inspired by the experiences of the group that transcend beyond day-to-day practices, a series of teaching methods have been redefined. The work surrounding these topics creates a desire to continue working on them in collaboration with different people and institutions in future projects. Likewise, the dynamics and methods used during the process have been considered as interesting and accurate enough to have been replicated in the various fields of the participants in the CIs.

The type of relationship between the people in the group has contributed to the creation of horizontal relationships, the revision of power relations (mainly in the generation of knowledge), to more empathetic and democratic processes beginning inside and outside of these inquiries and to encouraging respect for others and the search for consensus.

Even though the inquiry processes do not represent a starting point in terms of GC, they are considered as a valuable backdrop and important complement to other focuses and also constitute the first research experience for some of the participants. They represent a life experience that forces us to question, think and analyse, and that introduces networking into teaching practices. On the other hand, the learning related to both the content and the methods can be applied to daily practices and also encourages revision and discovery of and reflection on concepts and new or already acquired practices.

5. Conclusions

The conclusions that can be drawn from this article will begin with the task of reflecting on and creating the GC concept. A cautious attitude should be adopted and it is important to note that the term GC is not applicable to all realities and, while it does represent a more or less broad vision, this vision is not shared by everyone. However, in the field of education, the idea of citizen interdependence and the need to establish a minimum level of responsibility towards the rest of the world cannot be omitted. Once established, these concepts can then be translated into active and dedicated proposals for social change towards a more egalitarian model of human, political and environmental development, which would be reflected in people’s daily actions and political petitions to States and administrations.

Although it has not been covered in depth, this study has touched upon the configuration of individual identity in order to be able to understand, develop and put into practice the characteristics of global citizenship. This means that the context, traditions, culture and history that surround us as individuals are highly influential when it comes to understanding and developing a series of attitudes and commitments in relation to people from realities both near and far. In future research, it would be interesting to explore this idea with the aim of obtaining more information and of broadening the “focus” through which the bases of GC are understood and established.

With regard to educational practices and approaches, it is vital that schools be reconceptualised as democratic spaces since they are one of the first spaces where socialisation occurs. This implies a fundamental series of changes in the roles played by all people involved in education. This series of changes entails the adoption of responsibilities in the classroom regarding teaching processes, subject management and the accountability of everyone who forms part of the education centre. In addition, educational and training activities should be conceived as a complex process that requires the time and spaces to take a flexible approach to spontaneous or planned situations and meeting, depending on the needs of the participants. An example of this shift towards a more democratic model for schools would be a change in the role played by the students’ families. Through getting involved in the management of the centre and in educational activities with the students, these families would become an “advisory” voice on the school boards.

The knowledge and subjects that are covered in classrooms should be connected with the pupils’ reality, as well as encouraging them to be aware of and use their ability to act and make changes both as individuals and as a group. For this to be achieved, teaching methods and practices must be employed that, without exclusively relying on textbooks, use material and nearby resources that establish connections between local and global realities. It is also necessary to rethink the knowledge that is passed on by considering the local and global realities of a world in which personal, economic and environmental issues are inevitably interconnected, and in which the power to make decisions about issues such as these is unevenly distributed. Future research in line with the above could focus on exploring teaching methods and focal points that would establish stronger links between local and global realities. It is also important to investigate ways in which schools can forge better links with their local surroundings, playing a greater role in local realities while also fostering student participation and their ability to act and make changes in their local communities. Lastly, and along the same lines, it would also be interesting to continue working on the exchange of experiences and methods between the earlier stages of education and universities in order to encourage these institutions to rethink teaching methods, focal points and socio-affective attitudes through teaching innovation groups.

At the same time, is it also important that connections are formed between the range of formal and informal institutions involved in educational activities. This would allow for the introduction of strategies to prevent the duplication of activities and exhaustion of teachers, and to enhance the personal and educational development of students. These connections will require and create spaces for reflection and dialogue both inside and outside of schools in response to the actual needs of the education process. In this task, the role of governmental institutions is fundamental in that they must guarantee sufficient material and human resources in order to satisfy the needs and requirements of the education sector so as to provide quality education that is adaptable to different realities.

Continuing to focus on the role and approach taken by the State government in educational matters, and in contrast to the tendencies reflected in current reforms, there remains a strong need to introduce curricula with artistic and humanistic content, subjects and focal points at all levels of education. This need is underlined throughout this article, especially in the case of technical degrees that have become completely cut off from such areas of knowledge, creating the simplistic impression that only technical knowledge is of any worth and, to a certain extent, reducing students’ creative, critical and analytical abilities. Furthermore, we must attempt to respond to and visualise the multicultural reality of classrooms today, in order to anticipate their needs and benefit from the opportunity they present to work on GC-related topics. In order to do this, the education authorities must provide the necessary resources that will probably vary from one education centre to the next, depending on the local neighbourhood/reality.

In relation to NGDOs, there is a clear need for them to take on a more political role as well as a more explicit strategic approach. These new stances and visions would redirect activities and thinking towards strengthening networking and social bases, with the aim of legitimising the actions of NGDOs and transforming them into genuine agents of social change. With regard to the educational material created by NGDOs for schools, these resources would need to be developed in collaboration with the educational community in order to respond to the needs of different education centres and realities. NGDOs would also need to actively position themselves as channels through which education centres can voice their demands. This would imply moving away from the mere provision of administrative services in order to take on a role that is more critical of and independent from any economic relationships between NGDOs and schools.

Finally, this study also points to the need to reconceptualise research as a task that is carried out by and for society. Within this new approach to research, academic participation would cease to play an “imperative” role, dismantling its monopoly on “valid knowledge” in order to place its experience and resources to serve the collective progress of all societies and realities.

This fact is related to the thematic research proposed by Freire (2006:126); a method of research that seeks to link up the most significant themes in order to identify how the corresponding problems are interrelated. This is how it comes to be that the more critical the inquiry, the more enriching and constructive it will be, since, by preventing it from fading away as a result of the narrowing perspectives of half perceptions of reality, we are able to gain a better understanding of the full picture.

6.         Bibliography

Adelman, C., 2006. Kurt Lewin and the Origins of Action Research. Educational action research, 1:1, pp.7-24.

Beck, U., 1998. ¿Qué es la globalización?, Barcelona: Paidós Ibérica.

Boni Aristizabal, A., 2006. La educación para el desarrollo orientada al Desarrollo Humano. Construir ciudadanía global desde la universidad. Intermón Oxfam Ediciones, pp. 41-66.

Boni Aristizabal, A., 2011. Educación para la ciudadanía global. Significados y espacios para un cosmopolitismo transformador. Revista Española de Educación comparada, 17, pp.65-86.

Boni Aristizabal, A. Hofmann-Pinilla, A. & Sow Paino, J., 2011. Educando para la ciudadanía global. Una experiencia de investigación cooperativa entre docentes y profesionales de las ONGD. In Educación para el desarrollo en la Universidad. Bilbao: Hegoa, pp. 93-99.

Boni, A. y López, E. 2012. El sistema de criterios de calidad para  experiencias de la Red de educadores para la ciudadanía global. Una experiencia colaborativa entre IO y la UPV. V Seminario Red Educadores Intermón Oxfam. Madrid.

Boni Aristizabal, A.,  Hofmann-Pinilla, A, Sow Paíno, J. 2012. Educando para la ciudadanía global. Una experiencia de investigación cooperativa entre docentes y profesionales de las ONGD. Estudios sobre Educación de la Universidad de Navarra,23, pp.63-81.

Celorio, J.J., 2006. III Congreso de Educación para el Desarrollo. Reconstruir unasocialización crítica. Vitoria: Hegoa, pp. 1-19.

Delanty, G., 2008. Revista CIDOB d’Afers. Fronteras: Transitoriedad y dinámicas La imaginación cosmopolita , 82-83, pp.35-49.

Fiedler, M.,  2011. Thinking at the Fault Lines: Development as shared responsibility. Thinking at the Fault Lines: Development as shared responsibility. York: EADI, p. 14.

Freire, P., 2006. Pedagogia de l’oprimit, Xàtiva: Edicions del crec i denes Editorial.

Gozálvez Pérez, V., 2006. Concepto y características de la Ciudadanía Cosmopolita (o Global). Construir ciudadanía global desde la universidad. Intermón Oxfam Ediciones, pp. 69-74.

Jones, E. & Gaventa, J., 2002. Concepts of citizenship: a review. IDS Development

Bibliography, 19, p.72.

Martínez Peyrats, P., 2006. La Educación Popular fuente de la Educación para el desarrollo. Construir ciudadanía global desde la universidad. Intermón Oxfam Ediciones, pp. 77-88.

Mc Laren, P. & Leonard, P., 2003. Paulo freire un encontre crític, Xàtiva: Edicions del Crec i Denes Editorials.

Merrifield, J., 2002. Learning citizenship. IDS Working Paper, 158, p.37.

Morrow, R.A. & Torres, C.A., 2003. Llegint freire i habermas. Pedagogia crítica i canvi social transformador, Xàtiva: Edicions del crec i denes.

Obando-Salazar, O.L., 2006. La Investigación Acción Participativa ( IAP ) en los estudios de psicología política y de género. Forum qualitative social research, 7(4).

Ospina, S., El Hadidy, W. & Hofmann-Pinilla, A., 2008. Cooperative Inquiry for Learning and Connectedness. Action learning: Research and practice, 5(July), pp.131-147.

De Paz Abril, D., 2011. Escuelas para la Ciudadanía Global. Un modelo de profesionalidad responsable. Educación para la ciudadanía global. Estrategias de acción educativa. Madrid. Intermón Oxfam, pp. 143-174.

Rahman, A. & Fals Borda, O.,  1991. La situación actual y las perspectivas de la investigación-acción participativa en el mundo. In Action and knowledge: breaking the monopoly with participatory action research. London & New York: Apex Press &Intermediate Technology Publications, pp. 1-20.

Santos, M., 2008. Ideas filosóficas que fundamentan la pedagogía de Paulo Freire. Revista Iberoamericana de Educación., 46, pp.155-173.

De Sousa Santos, B., 2006. Globalización y Democracia. Archipiélago, 73-74, pp.111-125.

Heron, J. & Reason, P., 2006. The Practice of Co-operative Inquiry: Research ‘with’ rather than ‘on’ people. Handbook of Action Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 179-188

Electronic sources

Kant, I., 1795. La paz perpetua. Biblioteca virtual Miguel de Cervantes.  Edición digital

basada en la edición de Madrid, Espasa Calpe, 1979. Available on:

http://www.cervantesvirtual.com/

Sow Paíno, J., Boni Aristizabal, A., y Cascant i Sempere, MªJ.,  2011. Cómo formar

ciudadanía global desde el sistema educativo formal. Docentes y ONGD’s investigando cooperativamente. Available on:

http://cuadernos.dpi.upv.es/mppd2/images/cuadernos/cuad_ed1.pdf

Ministry of Education, Culture and Sport, 2012. Official State Gazette no. 186.