Environmental Education Research,

Vol. 12, No. 1, February 2006, pp. 3346

Global education and education

for sustainability
Annette Scheunpflug* and Barbara Asbrand
University Erlangen-Nrnberg, Germany
Environmental
10.1080/13504620500526446
CEER_A_152627.sgm
1350-4622
Original
Taylor
102006
12
Scheunpflug@ewf.uni-erlangen.de
AnnetteScheunpflug
00000February
and
& Article
Francis
(print)/1469-5871
Francis
Education
2006
Ltd Research
(online)

This article focuses on the relationship between development education/global education and
education for sustainability. A short introduction describes the current use of the term global
education and the different groups working and competing within this area in the development
field. In the first part, the history of the concept of global education is outlined. The authors
describe the conceptual shifts from Third World pedagogy to development education to global
education. In the second part, the current conceptual debate within the global-education discourse
itself is described. The relationship between the concepts of global education and education for
sustainability is reflected on in the third part. Finally, the current challenges for the implementation
in practice, for the conceptual debate, and for the research agenda in the field of global education
are outlined.

Introduction
Since 1995, the concept of global education has been a topic of discussion within the
German-speaking development discourse area. The emergence of this concept can be
considered as a reaction to the deconstruction of the notions of over-development
and under-development no longer being able to be thought of as two separated,
disconnected conditions.
The term Third World pedagogy has become obsolete. The German term Entwick-
lungspdagogik, that means development education, although constitutive for the
Zeitschrift fr Entwicklungspdagogik (a journal for development education and
international education research, which was founded in 1978), could not establish itself
in the same way in the German-speaking context as it did in the Anglophone area.
Today, the concept of global education is both established, yet criticised by the propo-
nents of education for sustainability because, they argue, it hinders the integration of

*Corresponding author. Universitt Erlangen-Nrnberg, Lehrstuhl Pdagogik I, Regensburger Str.

160, 90478 Nrnberg, Germany. Email: Annette.Scheunpflug@ewf.uni-erlangen.de

ISSN 1350-4622 (print)/ISSN 1469-5871 (online)/06/01003314

2006 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/13504620500526446
34 A. Scheunpflug and B. Asbrand

developmental and environmental aspects of education in the concept of sustainability.

These conceptual debates are reflected upon in what follows.

From Third-World pedagogy to global education: about the history of this

field of study
Global education has been a commonly used term in the German-speaking area
since the middle of the 1990s. The conception evolved from different pedagogical
theories (see Scheunpflug & Seitz, 1995).
The most significantas well as the oldestframes of reference are development
education and Third World pedagogy. Both date back to colonial times, when part of
education was to support colonial politics in school and society. In the 1950s,
Germany returned to the international union and in the middle of the 1990s a
number of development-political non-governmental organisations (NGOs) such as
Brot fr die Welt, Misereor and the Deutsche Entwicklungsdienst were founded.
As a reaction to this, early concepts of a Third World pedagogy started to evolve.
During the decolonialisation of the 1950s and 1960s, the so-called developing
countries appear as new additional curriculum content: For the school geographer,
our problem is first of all simply that of coping with additional teaching material
(Schiffers, 1960, p. 385). With the experience gained from the Biafra crisis, the
Cabora-Bassa Dam issue in Mozambique and the Vietnam War, a distinct politicali-
sation set in within the development-political debate towards the end of the 1960s.
For the first time, the dependence on economic structures and the connection
between the development of the so-called First and Third Worlds became focal
points. The concept of development pedagogy was perceived as the an attempt to
provide a pedagogical response to (global, local, and individual) problems of under-
and over-development (Treml, 1980, p. 13). At the beginning of the 1980s, Action
e (Live more simply, so that others can survive), a large educational campaign
within the German-speaking area, initiated by the evangelical NGO Brot fr die
Welt, for the first time pointed explicitly to the connection between the consumption
of resources in the North and developmental opportunities in the South. This idea
has now become a main argument in education for sustainable development (ESD)
through Agenda 21.
An exceptional role, particularly within the churches, has another conceptual
framework, that of the programme of ecumenical learning. It stems from a move-
ment with a theological background and a foundation of development-political
education which evolved from the multiculturalism of churches and especially the
anti-racism programme of the World Council of Churches in mutual resistance
against South African apartheid. In the 1970s, Paulo Freire became special adviser
for educational issues at the World Council of Churches in Geneva. His pedagogical
theorypedagogy of the oppressed (1979) and dialogue as a principle (Cartas a
Guin Bissau; Registros de uma experiencia em processo) (1980)had lasting
influence on development education in Germany. It led to a political bias towards the
oppressed and the rootedness of development education in everyday life. Paulo
 Global education and education for sustainability 35

Freires approach through so-called generative issues strengthened the debate on

trade and its consequences on life in the southern hemispherea debate which was
also influenced by the paradigm shift in social sciences to an focus on everyday life.
The support of fair trade and the already mentioned initiative Action e by the NGO
Brot fr die Welt also need to be seen in this context. The Catholic Churchs liber-
ation theology, with its representatives Ernesto Cardenal and Leonardo Boff, became
an important reference point for development education and the vision of worldwide
social justice.
The term global education, commonly used in the Anglophone area since the
1970s, was introduced and spread within the German-speaking debate by the Swiss
forum School for One World (Forum Schule fr Eine Welt, 1995). The basic concep-
tual ideas in that paper have been influential in other concepts in either the same or
similar form (e.g. Bhler, 1996; Fountain, 1996; VENRO 2000; Seitz, 2002). Global
education today has established itself as an educational field which provides a peda-
gogical reaction to the developmental state of world society working within the norma-
tive premise of overcoming inequality by being orientated towards a model of global
justice (cf. for the German-speaking area Global Lernen 1996; VENRO, 2000; Seitz,
2002, Scheunpflug & Schrck, 2002). Global education takes from development
education and the Action e the perspective that development is a challenge not only
for countries in the south, but also for the industrialized countries. It takes from
ecumenical learning the orientation in international social justice and the recognition
of the voices of the oppressed. But apart from this there is a controversial discourse
on the concept of global education because of the hidden normativity of the concept
of development and the relation between development and education.

Discourse on the conception of global education

Current discourses on global education are characterised by the way in which the
normativity of the idea of justice is approached and in which the relation between
development and education is discussed. It may roughly be distinguished into two
schools of thought or discourse (see Asbrand & Scheunpflug, 2005): The so-called
action-theory is grounded in a holistic view about the world and human beings
(Forum Schule fr Eine Welt, 1995; Bhler, 1996; Selby, 2000; Selby & Rathenow,
2003). Here, normative educational goals and contents such as, for example, solidar-
ity, tolerance, empathy, a holistic world view and so forth are central and aimed for
(Forum Schule fr Eine Welt, 1995; Bhler, 1996; Fountain, 1996, Fhring, 1996,
1998; Selby, 2000; VENRO, 2000; critical Asbrand & Lang-Wojtasik, 2002a). On
the other side, system-theory approaches to global education are shaped from the
perspective of constructivism and systems theory (Treml, 1993a,b, 1996a,b;
Scheunpflug, 1996; Scheunpflug & Schrck, 2002; Asbrand, 2003 attempt to inte-
grate both perspectives; Seitz, 2002). Here, the aim of global education is to support
the learners development in terms of acquiring adequate competencies for life in a
world society, preparing for an uncertain future and acquiring competencies to deal
with complexity and uncertainty.
36 A. Scheunpflug and B. Asbrand

Both discourses evolve from criticism of development education in the beginning

of the 1990s from a systems-theory perspective (see Treml, 1993a,b, 1996a,b). From
this point of view, development education was criticised as a normative postulative
pedagogy, failing in its objectives due to its high normative and moral attitude
(Scheunpflug & Seitz, 1993). The counter-criticism (Bhler et al., 1996) resulted in
a controversy that can be described as a dispute on paradigms (see Scheunpflug &
Hirsch, 2000). In the following part the differences between them are ideal-typically
(in the sense of Max Weber) exaggerated; even so, more differentiation is possible in
this context (see Seitz, 2002).

Action-theory-based approaches
The characteristics of global education in respect to an action-theory-based paradigm
are split into five principles by a paper from German developmental NGOs (VENRO,
2000):
(1) The model of global education is that of a future-orientated development. The
underlying anthropology is to promote the emancipation of individuals, their
capability to participate and their self-competence (ibid.). The normative basis of
global education is the model of human development and social justice and the
solidarity for those who suffer under the globalisation process (VENRO, 2000,
p. 11). Development in this concept is understood as an intentional driven
process. The hidden assumption is that people having the right awareness may
act in a right way.
(2) The objectives of global education are not only the problems of the Third World,
but also global connections and the understanding of the interconnections of the
immediate local actions with the global context. This further means the recogni-
tion of the relativity of ones own cultural identity and the ability to change
perspectives (VENRO, 2000, p. 10). The assumption is that things may be
understood in their interconnectedness being located in the local.
(3) The methods of global education are manifold, holistic and participatory. For
example, encouraging learners to change perspectives on issues aim to make
complexity more transparent. The exploration of the local, sensory experience
and critical media education are seen as parts of global education which should
also provide positive cultural and creative access to the so-called Third World
and thereby take the current experience of the learners as a starting point (ibid.).
The educational objective of global education is the:
strengthening of self-determined learning and the capability to shape world society: It is
the objective of global education to support people in recognizing globality, in using their
capabilities and opportunities in order to orientate themselves within social and economic
development, as well as in orientating both individual and social ways to lead a life with
open and reflective values. Global education aims to support both individual and collective
competence to act in the name of worldwide solidarity (ibid.).

This concept assumes a linkage between information, awareness and acting.

 Global education and education for sustainability 37

System-theory approaches

The system-theory approach to global education is grounded in systems theory (see

summarising Scheunpflug & Schrck, 2002) and founded upon an analysis of global-
isation. In accordance with Luhmann (1975, 1997), the approach depicts globalisa-
tion as a development towards world society. Further, the approach integrates
anthropological considerations and learning theory:
(1) Complexity of world society: The main characteristic of world society in the
context of globalisation is the delimiting of space and the increasing of complexity.
Growth is limited and involves global risks. Within shorter and shorter time spans,
knowledge loses its meaning. Owing to accelerated social change, the unknown and
the familiar clash. Only by means of abstract thinking can these problems be
surpassed (Scheunpflug & Schrck, 2002, pp. 6ff). In this concept, development is
no longer understood as an intentional driven concept but as chaotic and contingent.
The assumption of a direct connection between intentions and consequences may not
describe the complexity of world society anymore. Development is to be understood
by teleonomy and not by teleology.
(2) Orientation within the local and the necessity of abstract learning: To perceive
global complexity may be difficult for anthropological reasons. Humans prefer the
sensually perceivable surroundings. The capability of solving problems is orientated
towards social closeness and groups of manageable size. Problems that are sensually
perceivable are given priority. This orientation of humans is problematic in regard to
ethical challenges: In a global context, responsible ethics refer to distant people,
future generations and the environment (Treml, 1993b; Scheunpflug & Schmidt,
2002). Learning to shape abstract social relations is necessary (Scheunpflug &
Schrck, 2002, p. 7). The assumption is that interconnectedness may not be under-
stood by orientation in the local but needs abstract cognitive understanding and
learning.
(3) Aspects of learning theory: The systems concept of learning pays respect to the
fact that learning takes place not through the imparting of knowledge or values, but
via self-organized learning by learners. Education does not have direct access to the
learners consciousness (Scheunpflug & Seitz, 1993; Treml, 1993a,b). The assump-
tion is, instead, a notion of learning that depicts learning as an individual, autopoetic
process that is stimulated, but not determined, by surroundings (see Scheunpflug,
2001, pp. 74ff). From this point of view the assumption that educational activities
could directly cause learning processes in terms of changes in attitude and behaviour
is treated with reserve. Thus, global education can only offer arrangements for self-
organised learning, while the learning processes are not predictable, and a strict line
from information by awareness to acting is to be doubted.
The debate between the two approaches brought a consensus that mere information
provided by ministries or NGOs is an inappropriate educational approach. It was obvi-
ous that the implicit understanding of development has to be clarified so that it would
be easier to assume a direct connection between global education and development
towards social justice.
38 A. Scheunpflug and B. Asbrand

Global education and education for sustainability

Another conceptual issue emerged in 1999even if subliminallyin the form of a

debate between the concepts of education for sustainability and global education.
Against the background of Agenda 21, ideas about education for sustainability have
been developed coming from environmental education (see the contributions in this
issue; Bund-Lnder-Kommission, 1998; de Haan & Harenberg, 1999; critical: Seitz,
1999; see also the magazine 21, published from 2000 to 2004, which contains numerous
examples of practical applications).
On the part of supporters of education for sustainability, the proponents of global
education have been accused of supporting a traditionalistic concept that could no
longer meet up with the state of the art and with school reality (de Haan, 2002,
p. 76). It was argued that topics would not being reflected in an integrative manner
and that by emphasising the Third World regional aspect and the prospect of justice,
the key competencies in regard to the problems of sustainability would not be
covered. This analysis was bolstered by the concern that an approach with a regional
focus on Third World countries would not refer to the integrated perspective on
ESD and would carry illusory concepts of global social justice.
On the other hand, representatives of global education feared that by the concept
of sustainability, ecological problems would come to the fore and matters of world-
wide justice would be underminedin this they shared the opinion of the German
federal parliament which, in June 2000, passed a resolution demanding the develop-
mental dimension of education for sustainability be forced through (Bundestags-
drucksache 14/3319). The programme BLK 21, financed by the German
government and the federal states with more than 13 million euros, made an effort to
turn the demands of Agenda 21 into German school reality; its practical emphasis was
on projects that had been developed from the tradition of environmental education:
The dimension of international political and economical relations, the problem of
worldwide social disparity, hence the prospect of a just and democratic social devel-
opment within a global context remain, according to Klaus Seitzs analysis of the
support programmes concept, superficial (Seitz, 1999, p. 33). Meanwhile, although
the support programme has become recognizably more open to global matters, an
analysis of the material which resulted from the project comes to the conclusion that
issues of global education were not adequately represented (Hanisch, 2005).
This conceptual debate has a concrete background which is founded on the
competition for funding. Environmental education in Germany is institutionally far
more deeply rooted than global education. At universities there are at least two firmly
established chairs and teaching positions for environmental education, whereas the
same is not the case for global education. Furthermore, the government has
supported practically applied pilot projects for environmental education, which has
not been the case for global education. With environmental education, an effective
state fund has been established by support programmes by the German Federal
Environmental Foundation (Deutsche Bundesstiftung Umwelt), which finances
projects and working structures. For development education/global education there
 Global education and education for sustainability 39

is far less funding which, in addition, may be used for project-related activities only.
For that reason, the question of how to address the concept of sustainability is not
only a conceptual debate but has to do with access to funding instruments. For as
long as the sector of environmental matters is recognizably better equipped than the
sector of development or global education in Germany, the embodiment of the
concept of education for sustainability is more likely to be linked to the first
mentioned sector (Asbrand & Lang-Wojtasik, 2002b).
Aside from these problems, however, the two ideas have stimulated each other
conceptually over recent years. The conceptual merit of the debate on education for
sustainable development has been to raise the issue of competencies and skills.
Although there was a debate on competencies in the context of global education
before (as in Scheunpflug & Schrck, 2002), this was rather exceptional and had only
little effect. Instead, the BLK 21 programme and its concept made sure that efforts
to combine global education with the acquisition of competence received clear prom-
inence. As a result, the debate about competencies in the area of global education was
intensified (see Rost, 2004; Wegimont, 2004). Especially around the context of fair
trade, the focus on competences has strengthened the education-based concept of
this particular approach (see Asbrand, 2003, 2004), thus dealing with complexity and
with simultaneity of concreteness and abstractness in terms of content and form of
fair trade and the various possibilities of learning situations.
At the same time, criticism by representatives of global education inspired the
supporters of education for sustainability to integrate issues on global social justice
(see de Haan & Seitz, 2001). The merit of global education to the discourses of educa-
tion for sustainability is the widening of the perspectives on global issues. Since the
Earth Summit on sustainable development in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 there is consensus
that the only way to protect the environment is to face the challenges from a global
perspective. One of the crucial distinctions of the paradigm of sustainability is to take
worldwide justice into consideration. Environmental protection in the sense of sustain-
ability always has to take the complexity of a globalised world into account. That is
why education for sustainability needs the perspective of global educationotherwise
it remains environmental education, regardless of the complexity of a globalised world.
On the whole, the concept of education for sustainability has brought about a
dialogue in the German-speaking context between environmental education and
global education over the past few years that has contributed to the clarification and
strengthening of both concepts.

Challenges
Finally, the most important challenges of global education are outlined:

(1)Challenges in research
First it has to be noted that research in the field of global education is underdeveloped.
Empirical research is missing in the field of global learning processes, from the
40 A. Scheunpflug and B. Asbrand

perspective of the implementation of global education in the work of NGOs and

schools, in the relation between charities and education, in the educational impacts
of advertising by charities, in the relation between global education and didactics, and
in the relation between consciousness and behaviour. Further, there is nearly no
research about the impact of global education on political socialisation and vice versa.
Compared to this catalogue, existing research looks inadequate. Research in the
theory and history of global education has evolved to a certain extent and there is a
conceptional and theory-related debate as described above (see also Treml, 1980;
1993a,b; 1996a,b; Scheunpflug & Seitz, 1993; Scheunpflug, 1996; Bhler, 1996;
Fhring, 1996; Scheunpflug & Hirsch, 2000). There are studies related to the anthro-
pological base of global education (see Scheunpflug & Schmidt, 2002) which look at
possible stimulating ideas coming from natural sciences such as neurological knowl-
edge, socio-biology or evolutionary anthropology. Besides theoretical approaches,
there are research activities in the history of global education (see Scheunpflug & Seitz,
1995; Lang-Wojtasik & Lohrenscheidt, 2003) and field descriptions of global educa-
tion (see global education in Austria, Sdwind Agentur, 2003; and global education
in communities, Milcher & Nitschke, 2000; Diefenbacher & Wilhelmy, 2003).
Further empirical research, however, is necessary in the German-speaking context.
Asbrand is working on the question of how adolescents deal with complexity in the
context of a world society. This is reconstructive-qualitative research following the
interpretative paradigm and associated with the field of research on adolescents (see
Asbrand, 2005). Within the framework of the evaluation of the BLK 21 programme
on education for sustainability, standardized instruments (questionnaire items and
tests) for the measurement of competencies concerning sustainability in the frame-
work of quantitative empirical assessments have been developed (Rost et al., 2004)
but the results of this study, which probably might be very interesting, have not been
published so far (see Rode, 2005).

(2)Challenges in practice
A remaining challenge within school practice is the issue of institutional establishment.
So far, global education in Germany has played an important role neither in teacher
education nor in further trainingand the intensification of this study field in
university teaching is a necessity. With regard to school itself, current implementation
in curricula is not sufficientwhat is further needed is the adequate representation of
global education in terms of school books and teaching material. The project
Transfer 21 works intensively in this field. Right now, a task force is developing new
guidelines on global education for the Standing Conference of the Ministers of
Education and Cultural Affairs of the Lnder in the Federal Republic of Germany
(Kultusministerkonferenz). It remains to be seen which impetus evolves from this
approach with regard to the implementation of global education in schools.
For a not particularly well-established field such as global education, within the
school context, the topical debate on educational standards and competencies in
Germany is of great importance. Competencies can be understood as a relationship
 Global education and education for sustainability 41

between knowledge and skills. They enable us to cope with different situations
(Klieme, 2004, p. 13) or as the ability to successfully meet complex demands in a
particular context (Rychen & Salganik, 2003, p. 2). In 2003, the Organisation for
Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) identified key competencies for
personal, social and economic well-being. They defined three categories of compe-
tencies: interacting in socially heterogeneous groups; acting autonomously; and using
tools interactively. It is important to know that each of these competencies implies
the mobilisation of knowledge, cognitive and practical skills, and social and behav-
ioural components including attitudes, emotions, and values and motivations
(Rychen & Salganik, 2003, p. 2). However, the shift of curricula towards output-
orientated performance evaluations is a significant challenge for the newly established
contents of global education. This shift is difficult to accept especially for NGOs
which want to get support from schools and students. In the last ten years NGOs have
had more possibilities to work in schools, and some of them have not yet accepted
that their role is not to collect money from children and to inform them about their
work, but to contribute to the competences of young people to deal with the
challenges of the future.
Up to now, the contents of global education have not even in international
comparative studies such as the international Civic Education Study (sterreich,
2002)received much consideration in common performance evaluations. The
extent to which Rosts study on competence (2004) will have provided future-
orientated impetus remains to be seen. In the last few years there has been intensive
debate about raising the quality of global education in NGOs (Hartmeyer & Leber,
2003, for the European context, OLoughlin & Wegimont, 2003). While there
appears to be consensus across the German education research community about the
need for more evaluation studies focusing on the quality of global education, discus-
sions remain about the role of pre-defined learning standards in raising and monitor-
ing quality. For example, some parts of funding from the protestant churches in
Germany are now related to compulsory evaluation and standards of quality. There
is still a lot of work needed to feed back the results of evaluation into the daily work
of organisations.
Within the fields of youth work outside formal education, and adult education and
the activities of developmental NGOs, the issue of funding structures will be of great
importance throughout the next few years. Contrary to the environmental education
sectorin which multi-layered funding instruments by, for instance, the Federal
Environmental Agency (Umweltbundesamt) and the German Federal Environmen-
tal Foundation (Deutsche Bundesstiftung Umwelt) are at hand (see Bundesministe-
rium fr Bildung und Forschung, 2001)there are, within the context of global
education, only a few, financially weak funding programmes for NGOs as well as for
schools and other institutions made available by the churches and the Federal
Ministry of Economical Cooperation and Development (ibid.). Better financial
support for the sector and clearer guidelines for funding would be an important
improvement for the field of global education. Further training is required for the staff
developing NGO sector.
42 A. Scheunpflug and B. Asbrand

(3)Conceptual and theoretical challenges

Further research is needed in regard to both theoretical framing and empirical

foundation:
- Many conceptsamong them the more recent ones developed by the BLK
programme 21 for education for sustainable developmentare based upon a
direct connection between individual learning and social development. The
assumption of a change in consciousness through education assumes that learn-
ing leads to changes in the attitude and behaviour of individuals and therefore
contributes to social change. As it is very doubtful whether such a direct connec-
tion exists, a somewhat more sophisticated theory may be necessaryfirst, in
order adequately to describe the connections, and second, to avoid the instru-
mentalisation of education for political goals (see Asbrand, 2002).
- Of importance is the question of how the normative goals of global education can
be legitimated and transferred into an educational approach that enables ethical
learning. The topic learning within globalisation urgently requires empirical
research (How do adolescents experience processes of globalisation? How do they
construct values and attitudes? How are competencies being acquired?), as well
as theoretical reflection, for example in respect of the notion of learning.
- There are only a few research studies focusing on how people orientate them-
selves within the world society and the grounds on which they can support the
ideas of global justice. At this point, substantial research could give insights into
the motives, values and orientations of various target groups.
- The debate on global education has to become internationalised. Owing to the
activities of the North-South Centre of the Council of Europe there have been
some important steps in this direction by connecting the different European
working and discussion fields. The Europe-wide Global Education Congress
Achieving the Millennium GoalsIncreased Commitment to Global Educa-
tion for Increased Critical Public Support in 2002 in Maastricht, the Nether-
lands, brought together the four pillars of global education in European
countries governments, members of parliaments on all levels, NGOs and
bodies such as universities and funding organisations. Importantly, this confer-
ence focused on the necessity of quality in global education rather than instill-
ing in people a sense of moral consternation. The conference Learning for a
Global Society: Improving Global Education in Europe: Issues of Evaluation
and Quality in September 2003 in London highlighted the necessity of
concepts on global education focussing on education and awareness-raising,
overcoming the impetus to collect money for charity. It also stressed the need
to connect the discourse on global education with the educational needs of
people in the twenty-first century, and discussed the priority of having quality
instruments such as evaluation, peer review and so forth. The yearly summer
school in global education provides further training for NGOs in all European
countries, but there are still steps to be taken, especially in internationalising
the academic field.
 Global education and education for sustainability 43

- The need for reflection exists in connection with the very term development
which is so crucial to this concept. Notions and concepts of development have
changed and shifted. The idea of realizing justice through development, for
instance, is deeply rooted within the discourse of post-war times. Because of
globalisation it has become harder to identify the origins of injustice and to
identify an adequate concept of development. Since the United Nations confer-
ence in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, it has become evident that the North can no
longer serve as a model for development in the South. The objective, rather, is
to revise ecologically harmful trends. In this process of a radically changing
notion of development which considers changes in the North to be unavoidable
and, at the same time, becomes textually more differentiated and complex, the
underlying understanding of development-related educational processes within
the context of global education changes as well.
These challenges may be better tackled by cooperation between protagonists of
global learning, people dealing with environmental education and those dealing with
education for sustainability than by concurrence between the different roots of ESD.

Note
The quotations in this article from reference works in German are the translations of the authors of
the article and/or the Editors, unless otherwise indicated.

Notes on Contributors
Dr Annette Scheunpflug is Professor of Education at the University Erlangen-
Nrnberg in Germany. Her research is focused on global education, interna-
tional and intercultural education, educational anthropology and quality in
education. She is a member of the advisory board of the German Ministry of
Economic Cooperation and Development and editor of a German journal on
international educational research and development education (ZEP ).
Dr Barbara Asbrand is a research fellow at the University Erlangen-Nrnberg in
Germany. Her research is focussed on the quality of education and global, inter-
cultural and interreligious education. Currently she is working on a research
project about young people and globalisation. She is member of the board of ZEP
and of the board of the intercultural education division of the German associa-
tion of educational research. Email: Barbara.Asbrand@ewf.uni-erlangen.de

References
Asbrand, B. (2002) Globales Lernen und das Scheitern der groen Theorie. Warum wir heute neue
Konzepte brauchen, Zeitschrift fr internationale Bildungsforschung und Entwicklungspdagogik,
25(3), 1319.
Asbrand, B. (2003) Keine Angst vor Komplexitt. Fairer Handel als Lernort und Gegenstand
Globalen Lernens, Zeitschrift fr internationale Bildungsforschung und Entwicklungspdagogik,
26(2), 713.
44 A. Scheunpflug and B. Asbrand

Asbrand, B. (2004) Competencies to deal with complexity: Fair Trade as a learning possibility in
global education, Development Education Journal, 11(3), 1517.
Asbrand, B. (2005) Unsicherheit in der Globalisierung. Orientierungen von Jugendlichen in der
Weltgesellschaft, Zeitschrift fr Erziehungswissenschaft, 8(2), 223239.
Asbrand, B. & Lang-Wojtasik, G. (2002a) Globales Lernen als gesellschaftlicher Auftrages wird
Zeit zu handeln. Anmerkungen zum VENRO-Papier Globales Lernen als Aufgabe und
Handlungsfeld entwicklungspolitischer Nicht-Regierungsorganisationen, Zeitschrift fr interna-
tionale Bildungsforschung und Entwicklungspdagogik, 25(1), 4244.
Asbrand, B. & Lang-Wojtasik, G. (2002b) Gemeinsam in eine nachhaltige Zukunft?
Anmerkungen zum Bericht der Bundesregierung zur Bildung fr eine nachhaltige
Entwicklung, Zeitschrift fr internationale Bildungsforschung und Entwicklungspdagogik,
25(2), 3134.
Asbrand, B. & Scheunpflug, A. (2005) Globales Lernen, in: W Sander (Ed.) Handbuch politische
BildungPraxis und Wissenschaft (Schwalbach/Taunus, Wochenschau), 469486.
Bhler, H (1996) Unterwegs zum Globalen Lernen (Frankfurt/Main, IKO).
Bhler, H., Datta, A., Karcher, W. & Mergner, G. (1996) Ist die Evolutionstheorie erziehungswis-
senschaftlich brandgefhrlich? Zeitschrift fr internationale Bildungsforschung und Entwicklungs-
pdagogik, 19(2), 2729.
Bundesministerium fr Bildung und Forschung (BMBF) (2001) Bericht der Bundesregierung zur
Bildung fr eine nachhaltige Entwicklung (Bonn, BMBF).
Bund-Lnder-Kommission fr Bildungsplanung und Forschungsfrderung BLK (1998) Bildung
fr eine nachhaltige Entwicklung. Orientierungsrahmen. (Bonn, BLK).
Diefenbacher, H. & Wilhelmy, S. (2003) Eine-Welt Bilanz. (Aschaffenburg, Forschungssttte der
Evangelischen Studiengemeinschaft e.V.).
Forum Schule fr Eine Welt (1995) Lernziele fr eine Welt (Jona, Forum fuer eine Welt).
Fountain, S. (1996) Leben in Einer Welt. Anregungen zum globalen Lernen. Praxis Pdagogik.
(Braunschweig, Westermann Schulbuchverlag).
Freire, P. (1979) Pedagogy of the oppressed (Pdagogik der Unterdrckten. Bildung als Praxis der
Freiheit) (New York, Herder and Herder).
Freire, P. (1980) Cartas Guin Bissau; Registros de uma experiencia em processo. (Dialog als Prinzip.
Erwachsenenalphabetisierung in Guinea Bissau, Wuppertal, 1980) (Geneva, World Council
of Churches).
Fhring, G. (1996) Begegnung als Irritation. Ein erfahrungsgeleiteter Ansatz in der entwicklungsbezo-
genen Didaktik (Mnster, Waxmann).
Fhring, G. (1998) Globales Lernen. Arbeitsbltter fr die entwicklungspolitische Bildungsarbeit (Berlin,
Deutscher Entwicklungsdienst).
Global Lernen Heft 3 (Eds) (1996) Brot fr die Welt in Zusammenarbeit mit Arbeitskreis Pdagogik
und Schulprojektstelle Globales Lernen (Stuttgart/Tbingen, Brot fr die Welt).
Haan, G. de (2002) Vorlufiger Bericht zur summativen Evaluation des BLK-Programms 21
(Berlin, BLK).
Haan, G. de & Harenberg, D. (1999) Bildung fr eine nachhaltige Entwicklung. Gutachten zum
Programm (Bonn, BLK).
Haan, G. de & Seitz, K. (2001) Bildung fr nachhaltige EntwicklungKriterien fr die
Umsetzung eines internationalen Bildungsauftrags, Journal 21, 1(1) S. 5862.
Hanisch, C. (2005) Globales Lernen im BLK-Modellversuch. Unpublished dissertation, Universitt
Bamberg.
Hartmeyer, H. & Leber, P. (2003) Evaluation of global education in European countries. Wien/
Bonn, unpublished paper for the German Bundesminsterium fr wirtschaftliche Zusammenarbeit
und Entwicklung.
Luhmann, N. (1975) Die Weltgesellschaft. In: ders.: Soziologische Aufklrung. Opladen, 5171.
Luhmann, N. (1997) Die Gesellschaft der Gesellschaft. Frankfurt am Main.
Klieme, E. (2004) Was sind Kompetenzen und wie lassein sie sich messen?, Pdagogik, 56(6), 1013.
 Global education and education for sustainability 45

Lang-Wojtasik, G. & Lohrenscheit, C. (Eds) (2003) EntwicklungspdagogikGlobales Lernen

Internationale Bildungsforschung (Frankfurt am Main/London, IKO).
Milcher, A. & Nitschke, U. (2000) Eine-Welt-Aktivitten im lokalen Agenda-Prozess in Deutschland.
Eine quantitative und qualitative Untersuchung (Aachen, Dritte Welt Forum Aachen).
North-South Centre of Council of Europe (Ed.) (2002) A European strategy framework for
improving and increasing global education to the year 2015 (Maastricht, EU).
OLoughlin, E. & Wegimont, L. (Eds) (2003) Evaluation and quality in global education,
Proceedings of the Global Education Network Europe (GENE) Conference, London 2325
September, North-South Centre of the Council of Europe, Lisbon.
Osler, A. & Vincent, K. (2002) Citizenship and the challenge of global education (Stoke, Trentham
Books).
sterreich, D. (2002) Politische Bildung von 14-jhrigen in Deutschland. Studien aus dem Projekt Civic
Education (Opladen, Westdeutscher Verlag).
Poenicke, A. (2002) Afrika in deutschen Schulbchern, Internationale Schulbuchforschung, 24(1),
97104.
Rode, H. (2005) Motivation, Transfer und Gestaltungskompetenz. Ergebnisse der Abschlussevaluation
des BLK-Programms 21. 19992004 (Berlin, BLK).
Rost, J. (2004) Competencies for global learning, Development Education Journal, 11(1), 68.
Rost, J., Laustrer, A. & Raack, N. (2004) Abschlussbericht zum Projekt Fragebogen Gestaltungsko-
mpetenz (Berlin, BLK).
Rychen, D. S. & Salganik, L. H. (Eds) (2003) Summary of the final report: key competencies for a
successful life in a well-functioning society (Gttingen: Hogrefe. OECD/DeSeCo), 116.
Scheunpflug, A. (1994) Eine Welt in beruflichen Schulen. Bestandsaufnahme und Perspektiven entwick-
lungsbezogenen Lernens. Forschungsberichte des Bundesministeriums fr wirtschaftliche Zusamme-
narbeit und Entwicklung, Issue 113 (Kln, BwZE).
Scheunpflug, A. (1996) Die Entwicklung zur globalen Weltgesellschaft als Herausforderung fr das
menschliche Lernen, Zeitschrift fr internationale Bildungsforschung und Entwicklungspdagogik,
19(1), 914 (Globalization as a challenge to human learning, Education, 54( 1)S., 716).
Scheunpflug, A. (2001) Biologische Grundlagen des Lernens (Berlin, Cornelsen Scriptor-Verlag).
Scheunpflug, A. (2003a) Stichwort: Globalisierung und Erziehungswissenschaft, Zeitschrift fr
Erziehungswissenschaft, 6(2) 159172.
Scheunpflug, A. (2003b) Education for sustainable development in Germany, Development
Education Journal, 9(3) June (Changing the worldlearning for sustainable development),
3638.
Scheunpflug, A. (Ed.) (2004a) Competencies and skills, Development Education Journal, 11(1),
12.
Scheunpflug, A (2004b), Learning for a global society, in: E. OLoughlin & L Wegimont (Eds)
Evaluation and quality in global education, Proceedings of the Global Education Network
Europe (GENE) Conference, London 2325 September 2003, North-South Centre of the
Council of Europe, Lisbon, 3945.
Scheunpflug, A. & Hirsch, K. (Eds) (2000) Globalisierung als Herausforderung fr die Pdagogik.
(Frankfurt/Main, IKO).
Scheunpflug, A. & Schmidt, C. (2002) Auf den Spuren eines evolutionstheoretischen Ansatzes in
der Erziehungswissenschaft und dessen Anregungen fr eine Bildung fr nachhaltige
Entwicklung, in: A. Beyer (Ed.) Fit fr Nachhaltigkeit? Biologisch-anthropologische Grundlagen
einer Bildung fr nachhaltige Entwicklung (Opladen, Leske & Budrich), 123140.
Scheunpflug, A. & Schrck, N. (2002) Globales Lernen (Stuttgart: Brot fr die Welt).
Scheunpflug, A. & Seitz, K. (1993) Entwicklungspdagogik in der Krise? In: A. Scheunpflug & K.
Seitz (Eds) Selbstorganisation und Chaos. Entwicklungspolitik und Entwicklungspdagogik in neuer
Sicht (Tbingen ,Hamburg, Schppe), 5775.
Scheunpflug, A. & Seitz, K. (1995) Die Geschichte der entwicklungspolitischen Bildung. 3 Bnde
(Frankfurt/Main, IKO).
46 A. Scheunpflug and B. Asbrand

Schiffers, H. (1960) Der Schulgeograph vor dem Problem Entwicklungslnder, Geographische

Rundschau, o. Jg. (10), Braunschweig, 385390.
Seitz, K. (1999) Bildung fr eine nachhaltige EntwicklungParadigmenwechsel oder
Mogelpackung? In: Zeitschrift fr internationale Bildungsforschung und Entwicklungspdagogik,
22(2), 3235.
Seitz, K. (2002) Bildung in der Weltgesellschaft. Gesellschaftstheoretische Grundlagen Globalen Lernens
(Frankfurt/Main, Brandes & Aspel).
Selby, D. (2000) Global education as transformative education, in: Zeitschrift fr internationale
Bildungsforschung und Entwicklungspdagogik, 23(3), 210.
Selby, D. & Rathenow, H.-F. (2003) Globales Lernen. Praxishandbuch fr die Sekundarstufe I und II.
(Berlin, Cornelsen Scriptor).
Sdwind Agentur (2003) Globales Lernen in sterreich: Bestandsaufnahme und Strategieentwicklung
(Wien, Sdwind).
Treml, A. K. (1980) Was ist Entwicklungspdagogik? In: Alfred K. Treml (Ed.) Entwicklungspda-
gogik. Unterentwicklung und berentwicklung als Herausforderung fr die Erziehung (Frankfurt/
M., Wochenschau), 317.
Treml, A. K. (1993a) Desorientierung beralloder Entwicklungspolitik und Entwicklungspda-
gogik in neuer Sicht, in: A. Scheunpflug & K. Seitz (Eds) Selbstorganisation und Chaos.
Entwicklungspolitik und Entwicklungspdagogik in neuer Sicht (Tbingen; Hamburg, Schppe),
1536.
Treml, A. K. (1993b) Entwicklungspolitik und Entwicklungspdagogik in evolutionstheoretischer
Sicht, in: A. Scheunpflug & K. Seitz (Eds) Selbstorganisation und Chaos. Entwicklungspolitik
und Entwicklungspdagogik in neuer Sicht. (Tbingen; Hamburg, Schppe), 111134.
Treml, A. K. (1996a) Die pdagogische Konstruktion der Dritten Welt: Bilanz und Perspektiven der
Entwicklungspdagogik (Frankfurt am Main, IKO).
Treml, A. K. (1996b) Die Erziehung zum Weltbrger. Und was wir dabei von Comenius, Kant
und Luhmann lernen knnen, Zeitschrift fr internationale Bildungsforschung und Entwicklung-
spdagogik, 19(1), 28.
VENRO (2000) Globales Lernen als Aufgabe und Handlungsfeld entwicklungspolitischer Nicht-
Regierungsorganisationen. Grundstze, Probleme und Perspektiven der Bildungsarbeit des VENRO
und seiner Mitgliedsorganisationen. Working paper Issue 10 (Bonn, VENRO).
Wegimont, L. (2004) Hitching our Wagon to the Wrong Star. Beyond the Attitudes, Concepts
and Skills trichotomy and towards a more adequate educational foundation for development
and global education, Development Education Journal 11(3), 35.