Beyond Seoul: The Reality of Global Citizenship Education in Korea's Regional Cities

This blogpost by Alina Saif is based on the author’s Master’s thesis at the Geneva Graduate Institute. The thesis received an Honorable Mention for the NORRAG Prize in Comparative and International Education, an annual award presented by the NORRAG Global Education Centre and the UNESCO Chair in Comparative Education Policy.  The prize aims to recognize an exceptional Master’s thesis at the Geneva Graduate Institute that addresses critical issues in the field of comparative and international education.

When South Korea hosted the World Education Forum in 2015, then President Park Geun-hye made an ambitious commitment to raise “future global citizens” through global citizenship education (GCE) (UNESCO, 2015b). A decade later, this vision faces a challenging reality in Korean classrooms – particularly in cities beyond the capital, Seoul, that have received little GCE research attention. Through in-depth interviews with seven secondary school English teachers in Daegu, South Korea’s fourth-largest city, my research reveals a troubling gap between national policy aspirations and actual classroom implementation. While teachers recognize GCE’s importance and want to prepare students for a globalized world, they face systemic barriers that force them into more “soft” approaches to global citizenship, often focusing on cultural awareness rather than critical engagement with global issues (Andreotti, 2006). 

The Promise and the Problem

Global citizenship education represents Korea’s strategic shift from aid recipient to global leader, positioning the country as a champion of international educational agendas (OECD, 2021; ODA Korea, 2023). The integration of GCE into national curricula reflects Korea’s broader identity transformation and commitment to developing citizens capable of addressing complex global challenges (Ministry of Education, 2018).

Yet my interviews uncovered a stark disconnect. Teachers consistently defined global citizenship as merely cultural understanding and communication skills. Teacher G described GCE as simply “being respectful to other people and understanding other cultures and diversity.” Notably absent were discussions of global power structures, economic inequalities, or critical examination of globalization’s impacts. This isn’t simply about teacher preferences. The dominance of “soft” GCE approaches reflects deeper structural constraints that push educators toward safer, less controversial content.

The Weight of Context

Daegu’s educational environment highlights how regional contexts and preferences shape GCE implementation beyond national policy frameworks. The city’s conservative culture, combined with Korea’s examination-driven education system, creates conditions where teachers avoid potentially controversial global topics. “In all of Korea it is hard for GCE to have priority over other curriculum,” Teacher F explained. “All focused on university entrance.” This exam pressure fundamentally constrains teachers’ capacity to engage meaningfully with GCE concepts, limiting them to incorporating only superficial cultural content that fits within test preparation frameworks.

Regional conservatism adds another layer of complexity. As Teacher C noted, “It is really hard to implement in Daegu, it is very [homogeneous], especially Daegu is very conservative city.” This homogeneous environment reduces students’ exposure to diversity while limiting community support for global citizenship initiatives that might challenge established values. The isolation extends beyond cultural factors. With foreigners constituting only 1.18% of Daegu’s population – compared to Seoul’s more diverse demographics – teachers and students have limited opportunities for authentic cross-cultural encounters that could deepen global understanding (Daegu Metropolitan City, 2021).

The Training Gap

Perhaps most striking was the complete absence of formal GCE training among all seven teacher participants, regardless of their years of experience. Even Teacher B, who taught at an International Baccalaureate-integrated school and was the only educator incorporating authentic global materials like newspaper articles, had received no systematic preparation for GCE delivery. This training deficit creates a cascade of implementation challenges. Teachers rely heavily on textbook materials, delivering content through traditional lecture formats rather than the student-centered approaches that effective GCE requires. Without professional development support, even the most motivated educators struggle to move beyond surface-level cultural exchange (Saperstein, 2020).

Implementation in Practice

In classrooms, teachers primarily incorporated cursory cultural components into their English lessons. Teacher D described cross-cultural projects focused on global festivals, while Teacher C developed food-focused lessons where students learned about international cuisines through role-play activities. While engaging, these approaches remained focused on cultural differences rather than deeper questions requiring analytical thinking about global interdependence, hardships in the developing world or systemic inequalities.

Some teachers did attempt to find creative adaptations within their constraints. Teacher G connected GCE to Daegu’s growing tourism industry, telling their students, “Daegu has many foreign tourists these days. We are [mostly] local, but we need GCE manner[isms].” Teacher B similarly developed projects where students wrote about Korean festivals for foreign audiences, bridging local culture with global communication skills.

These efforts, while limited, suggest pathways for more effective implementation. English classrooms naturally provide spaces for exploring global communication and cultural differences while aligning with language learning objectives. Yet this potential remains largely unrealized without appropriate teacher preparation and institutional support.

Structural Constraints

The research revealed significant limitations in teacher autonomy that constrained GCE implementation. “There are certain designated subjects and curriculum as well,” Teacher A explained. “We cannot change it. It’s really hard for teachers to teach anything without the permission of the school.” These structural limitations proved particularly problematic for GCE implementation, which typically requires interdisciplinary connections and student-centered pedagogies.

Textbook dependency emerged as another significant barrier. When asked about content sources, teachers repeatedly referenced textbook materials, with Teacher D stating everything was “pretty much from the textbook.” This dependence limited implementation to whatever curriculum developers deemed appropriate, leaving little room for locally relevant or critically engaging approaches.

Implications for Policy and Practice

The findings reveal fundamental tensions in Korea’s approach to global citizenship education. Top-down policy implementation, without adequate attention to regional contexts and teacher preparation, creates situations where educators must navigate competing demands alone.

The dominance of “soft” GCE approaches, while providing some exposure to global diversity, limits students’ capacity to engage critically with complex global challenges. This raises important questions about whether current implementation patterns can achieve the transformative goals outlined in national policy frameworks.

More critically, the study highlights how examination-focused educational priorities can undermine broader citizenship development objectives. Even committed teachers struggle to justify time allocation to GCE activities that don’t directly contribute to test performance, revealing a fundamental misalignment between assessment practices and global citizenship goals.

Moving Forward

Korea’s experience offers valuable insights for countries implementing global citizenship education policies. The research demonstrates that effective GCE requires more than curriculum integration. It demands systematic attention to teacher training and preparation, institutional support, and alignment between assessment practices and citizenship development goals. The regional variation within Korea also suggests that one-size-fits-all approaches may be insufficient for diverse educational contexts. Even relatively bigger cities like Daegu require implementation strategies that acknowledge local cultural dynamics while building community support for global perspectives without abandoning the critical engagement that meaningful global citizenship demands. Perhaps most importantly, the study reveals the critical role of teacher agency in educational transformation. Without adequate preparation and support, even motivated educators resort to superficial approaches that fail to develop the critical thinking and appreciation necessary for meaningful global citizenship.

Lessons for Global Implementation

As Korea continues positioning itself as a global education leader, bridging the gap between policy aspirations and classroom realities becomes increasingly urgent. The voices of teachers in cities like Daegu remind us that effective educational transformation requires understanding not just what we want to achieve, but how local contexts shape what’s possible, as well as the support educators need to turn ambitious visions into meaningful learning experiences.

Success requires not just committed individual educators but fundamental systemic alignment of educational priorities, assessment practices, professional development, and school cultures with global citizenship values. Only through such comprehensive effort can the promise of global citizenship education be realized, enabling students across Korea, metropolitan and rural, to develop the critical consciousness and global competencies necessary for active participation in an increasingly interconnected world. 

The Author:

Alina Saif recently completed her Master in International and Development Studies (Human Rights and Humanitarianism) at the Geneva Graduate Institute. Her Master’s thesis titled “Global Citizenship Education in English Language Secondary School Classrooms: A Case Study of Teacher Perspectives and Implementation in Daegu, South Korea” builds on her experience as a Fulbright Scholar in Daegu, providing unique insights into the daily operations and cultural contexts that shape global citizenship education implementation in Korean educational settings. She completed her undergraduate degree at the University of Maryland, College Park. Email: alina.saif@graduateinstitute.ch