J.Appl.Environ.Biol.Sci., 9(4)5-12, 2019 ISSN: 2090-4274 Journal of Applied Environmental © 2019, TextRoadPublication
andBiologicalSciences
www.textroad.com
1PhD Scholar, Department of Education, Hazara University Mansehra 2PhD Scholar, Department of Islamic & Religious Studies, Hazara University, Mansehra
Received:January24, 2019 Accepted: March29, 2019
This research was carried out to explore the civic characteristics and its education among university graduates in Pakistan. A survey research method was adopted to collect data. A questionnaire probing the civic attributes was used to collect data from a sample of fifteen hundred graduates of fifteen public/private universities selected from Punjab, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Federal as well as Northern areas of Pakistan. Analysis of data (i.e. mean, percentage & chi-square) exposed that a substantial number of graduates were significantly in favor to develop civic responsibility, leadership skills, knowledge of current World events, civic literacy/ethical awareness and human rights. They supported to build up civic acceptance/compassion, civic participation/membership, nationalism and reliability (promise keeping). Most of the graduates drastically kept a positive outlook and were prudent with their health, emotions, time and money. Majority of graduates contributed to society, have reverence for existing laws pertaining to country, respect property and cultural heritage of their motherland. A substantial number of graduates do their best to fulfilled commitments fairly and honestly, and avoid unclear commitments. Institutions of higher education may consider mandatory to pass on guidance in citizenship proficiencies, which possibly furnish the learner through the comprehension, skillfulness and stance for civic edification. KEY WORDS: Good Citizenship, Civic Attributes, Civic Education, Higher Institutions, University Graduates.
Nationality/citizenship be defined like, specification of becoming national by means of the privileges, responsibilities as well as professional responsibilities as a member of a community or a country. Fogelman (2001) stated that nationality is concerning to ask about ourselves that what is our identity and how we spend our time together. Citizenship reflects the correlation between a person and the country. Citizenship is a comprehensive theme which is able to educate by its own accurate way, or it also be taught by applying different methods, programs as well as the tasks. The foremost inspiration is that of the “good citizen” and builds well stress on citizens: they ought to be greatly apprehensive about community relationships, knowledgeable about matters with supporting actors, practiced sufficient to follow their wellbeing, and aggravated by an aspiration to promote the universal interests (Elms, 2011). This idea of a citizen was entrenched partially “inactive citizens” through the French Revolution.
Few might observe the concept of good citizen as excessively challenging; in this way the concept of adequate citizen would be more reasonable. If persons who require the scientific comprehension or capability are to be permissible to partake in the strategy development, yet, their actions have to be carried and assisted by various actors so that the depressing impact of such citizen contribution might be alleviated. This sustaining and assisting function cannot be effectively carry out by actors who have slight scientific understanding as well as capability; good citizens are probable to play this function. Consequently, even when the concept of the adequate citizen is in motion; the concept of the good citizen is still seen as fundamental to civilian membership (Matsuda, 2013).
Societal as well as ethical conscientiousness are the basics of citizenship. Ornstein (2016) specified the possible aims of citizenship education as take on students in learning the knowledge and talents; motivate pupils’ sense of responsibility, as they become aware of their duties and rights; foster and develop students’ admiration and support students to play an effective role in society by ensuring that they can participate in civic activities. Similarly Gearon (2015) has given key objectives of the citizenship education which include: to become an informed citizen; rising skills of enquiry and communication; increasing skills of participation and responsible action; supporting students’ religious, ethical, communal learning with literary improvement through nationality.
*Corresponding Author: Zia Ur Rehman, PhD Scholar at Department of Education Hazara University Mansehra Pakistan. email: ziajadoon555@hotmail.com
Gearon (2015) further added that nationality gives chances in favor of students for the improvement of main talents of: relationships, all the way through researching, discussing and sharing information and ideas about community; functions of numerals; information technology and crisis solution through becoming involved in political and community issues. Moreover citizenship provides opportunities to promote: thinking skills, financial capability, enterprise and entrepreneurial skills, occupational knowledge, civic learning and managerial skills.
Government of Pakistan Ministry of Education (2007) stated that instead of placing citizenship education into social studies, Pakistan studies, and Islamic studies, in which citizenship is seen to be boxed into a specific subject for the allotted grade levels, it needs to be ingrained as a fundamental foundation of education in all subjects with various aspects. Within the international prospective, the countries affiliated with United Nation ought to support civic learning at all educational levels. These should provide a dynamic public guidance that will facilitate each learner and human being towards getting civic information related to present society. Moreover, the provision of civic learning, community organizations through countrywide or global and contribution within civilized living are also related to the civic programs of these countries. However, the latest civic contribution of these countries should connect civic learning with learners’ achievement; should work out troubles related to civic environment within the country and up to intercontinental stages (UNESCO, 1995).
Ahmad (2003) indicated an important factor regarding civic participation. He mentioned that the civic engagement is preparing students for public life as citizens and leaders. It reflects a commitment to improve public communication on significant questions, responding to the social needs of the local and global communities in which we live. Civic engagement is a contemporary expression of the historic liberal arts mission, humanizing effective and ethical public leaders, encouraging civic imagination and creativity, and promoting a democratic way of life in a multicultural and increasingly globalized world (Latham, 2003).
Indicating the dimensions of civic education, Moore and Teskey (2006) have given the concept of “accountability/answerability and enforceability (also called controllability or sanction) that both dimensions require transparency i.e. in the absence of reliable and timely information there is no basis for demanding answers or for enforcing sanctions. Another dimension to accountability is responsiveness. Responsiveness is what citizens want when they exercise their voice, and it is fostered by the existence of soundly functioning accountability mechanisms. Responsiveness and accountability are the critical missing elements in our understanding of the relationship between the powerful elites and the disempowered poor who are asserting their rights” (Gloppen, 2003).
An important characteristic of citizenship is patriotism which means citizens showing loyalty to their motherland, together with loyalty to the basic standards as well as values upon which it depends (Michigan Department of Education, 1998). Patriotism comprises the show of fondness, like getting out and holding others in times of requirement. These acts of kindness were especially seen on September 11, 2001. According to Smith (2002) a true patriot is someone who is willing to show love toward people, even at times when nobody is watching. “The first duty of the citizen is obedience to law. It extends to the ordinances of every jurisdiction in which the citizen finds himself. This idea of obedience, which may be quite formal, mechanical and even reluctant, adds the notions of intensity, emotion, spontaneity, and constancy. A genuinely loyal citizen is always ready and eager, not only to obey the laws, but to support and maintain the political institutions of his country. Second duty is that of respect for public authority, and this means both public officials and their enactments” (Fowler & Blohm, 2011).
Civic knowledge as well as the ethics is the training of a person that has to partake like energetic as well as reliable populace within community. Civic knowledge has to clarify through graduates in which learning is seen as citizenship rather than learning about citizenship (Keller, 2003). One more dimension of civic knowledge and ethics is promise-keeping that is whenever we make promises or other commitments that create a legitimate basis for another person to rely upon us, we undertake special moral duties. We accept the responsibility of making all reasonable efforts to fulfill our commitments. It is imperative to evade bad belief pleas, understand your promises reasonably and sincerely; do not attempt to increase disobedience and keep away from foolish obligations. Be careful about making a promise think cautiously whether you are enthusiastic and expected to carry on it. Consider about unidentified or upcoming trials that could make it complicated, objectionable or unfeasible. Occasionally, the entire we can promise is to do our finest (Making Ethical Decisions Joseph Son Institute of Ethics).
Another key aspect related to civic education is morality that academics and the community together must develop a civic morality. In serving the community, academics develop an understanding within the community that they see the university and its academics as accountable to the community. The relationship and the work must be informative (Vernon, 2010). “Many people within many religions have, throughout history, and continue to this day, practiced intolerance in order to gain personal or secular power. No Muslim, no Jew, no Christian, no Hindu, no Buddhist, no one who is true to the principles of any of the world’s faiths, no one who claims a cultural, national or religious identity based on values such as truth, decency and justice can be neutral in the fight against intolerance” (United Nations Information Service, 2004). Acceptance goes a step beyond tolerance. For example, when a son or daughter tells a parent about an unwelcome career choice or marital partner etc, he or she wants that information not just to be tolerated but to be accepted. There is a third concept: understanding that is a psychological process related to an abstract or physical object such as a person, situation or message whereby one is able to think about it and use concepts to deal adequately with that object.
“Through citizenship education, graduates are expected to learn democratic values and dispositions on one side, and knowledge and skills on the other” (Veugelers, 2007). Independent principles and characters are observed as indispensable for graduates to cooperate in democracy. This type of role for graduates, additionally, is more significant if they cover sufficient knowledge and abilities to be occupied in the strategy plan. The objectives of university edification diverge from those of basic and secondary edification. University graduates are experienced and more knowledgeable than those in basic and secondary institutions. University edification is distinguished by assisting non-situated education, similar as basic and secondary edification. Non-situated education intends just at learning, while situated learning is distinct as learning that carry out in the course of a work or activity (Matsuda, 2013).
Once civic education intends at rising graduates into good citizens, universities are probable to assist in citizen development by accomplishing professional edification. In recent times, in different countries, counting United States and Japan, a lot of universities present skilled graduate and undergraduate plans on civic affairs (Tsuchiyama & Ohyano, 2008). Such plans are able to help graduates attain technical information and skills concerning strategy investigation, design and estimation. Rotating to civic edification on the foundation of the concept of the adequate citizen, universities are probable to offer fundamental information on the strategy development and public edification (Annette & McLaughlin, 2005). These viewpoints and information are crucial for any graduate to partake in the strategy development. In this logic, it is important that university edification of such type be attained by as many graduates as probable. Specially, it must be presented not simply to full-time graduates; prospects for such edification have to be released to different graduates, for example, through university expansion plans.
It is obvious from the above discussion that civic education and its attributes have been the vital aspects of the development of human life. Citizenship characteristics have been studied in most of the higher institutions of the World. However, still there is a lack of study/research about citizenship and its attributes at university level in Pakistan. So it was crucial to conduct a research about attributes of good citizenship among university graduates in Pakistan to encompass profound understanding of base for fundamental research and strategy formulation for citizenship innovation.
The present research was conducted to measure the attributes of good citizenship among university graduates: a Pakistani case; having an objective as (i) to explore the attributes of good citizenship among university graduates. A follow-on question was also devised as (i) what attributes of good citizenship exist among university graduates?
Owing to limited time period and financial conditions and related restrictions, this study was delimited to only two provinces of Pakistan (i.e. the universities situated in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Punjab; including Federal as well as Northern Areas); university graduates of BS program of the year 2014 having 3rd/4th semester.
The conclusions of present study emphasize strengths and weaknesses among university graduates concerning citizenship attributes in Pakistan; and to find the key reasons regarding the promotion of civic education through curricular and co-curricular programs. Further these finding may be valuable for university faculties, university administrators, policy makers and educational planners in advanced education. These findings may help university faculties and administration to overcome deficient areas of citizenship and its attributes, in addition to develop the activities and plans in which universities are lagging behind. Moreover, the present research may unlock innovative opportunities for researchers working in the field of human services.
This study was conducted to explore the attributes of good citizenship among university graduates: a Pakistani case. Subsequent procedure was adopted to accomplish this purpose.
Population of present research was consisted of all the graduates of BS program in universities of Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province of Pakistan. There were 44250 BS level graduates within 103 Universities (public/private) in Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa together with Federal and Northern areas of Pakistan, from which sample of research was selected.
For the purpose of getting a suitable sample from population, a multistage stratified random sampling technique was adopted. Whole population was divided into two parts as: the province of the Punjab with Federal Capital Area (Islamabad) and the province of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa with Northern Areas (Gilgit Baltistan). 1500 BS level graduates of the 15 selected universities i.e. 100 graduates from each university were chosen for study.
According to Saravanavel (2011) a questionnaire is well thought-out the heart of survey study. So for the collection of data regarding the exploration of the attributes of good citizenship among university graduates, a questionnaire having like 5 point Likert scale (citizenship attribute scale) was developed for BS level university graduates. The instrument has been passed through pilot testing and executed experts’ opinions and, the entire necessary modifications were worked out; then finally passed through judgmental validation and was used for further progression.
Data was collected by visiting the sampled institutions/departments and administered the questionnaire to the respondents. The respondents were asked to go through the suitable technique as to carefully think each statement and cautiously mark the answer sheets. The collaboration and seriousness of the respondents made it feasible to get a 100 % return rate of the instrument.
After setting and tabularizing the collected data, SPSS (Statistical Package for Social Sciences) were used for numerical analysis; as percentage, arithmetic mean, frequency and chi-square were used. The analysis reflected complete outcomes of the study. These results were further used to search the findings as well as the conclusions of the study.
Citizenship attributes have been analyzed after getting the output of the respondents by using a questionnaire like five point Likert scale (i.e. Always, Mostly, Sometimes, Rarely, Never). Chi-square test (goodness of fit) has been applied and the scores of all respondents with their percentages; mean values are given in the succeeding tables.
Table1: Acceptance/Compassion/ObedienceasAspectsofCitizenshipamongUniversityGraduates
ExpectedFrequency=300 p=0.000, *Significant at 0.05
Table 1 shows the graduates’ acceptance/compassion/obedience as aspects of citizenship. The analysis of statement No.1 shows a significant response (χ2=628.0, p<0.05) of the majority of graduates (Always=31%, Mostly=36%, and mean=3.85) about keep a positive outlook and avoid becoming cruel or insensitive. The analysis of statement No. 2 shows a significant response (χ2=797.9, p<0.05) of the majority of graduates (Always=31%, Mostly=40%, and mean=3.93) about prudent and self-disciplined with their health, emotions, time and money. The analysis of statement No.3 shows a significant response (χ2=718.2, p<0.05) of the majority of graduates (Always=37%, Mostly=34%, and mean=3.96) about avoid using threats or physical force to get what they want or to express anger. The analysis of statement No. 4 shows a significant response (χ2=739.7, p<0.05) of the majority of graduates (Always=31%, Mostly=39%, and mean=3.91) about accept individual differences and beliefs without prejudice. The analysis of statement No. 5 shows a significant response (χ2=652.5, p<0.05) of the majority of graduates (Always=34%, Mostly=34%, and mean=3.90) about exercise self-control, restraining passions and appetite (such as lust, hatred, gluttony, greed and fear) for the sake of longer term vision and better judgment. The analysis of statement No. 6 shows a significant response (χ2=722.6, p<0.05) of the majority of graduates (Always=33%, Mostly=37%, and mean=3.93) about contribute to society and perform civic duty. The analysis of statement No. 7 shows a significant response (χ2=622.0, p<0.05) of the majority of graduates (Always=31%, Mostly=35%, and mean=3.85) about try their best to perform civic duty by doing more than their fair share to make society work, now and in the future.
Table2: CivicParticipation/Membership/MoralityasAspectsofCitizenshipamongUniversityGraduates
ExpectedFrequency=300 p=0.000, *Significantat0.05
Table 2 shows the graduates’ civic participation/membership/morality as aspects of citizenship. The analysis of statement No.1 shows a significant response (χ2=711.4, p<0.05) of the majority of graduates (Always=31%, Mostly=39%, and mean=3.89) about like to perform their civic duty by staying informed on issues concerning privileges and obligations as a member of the community and of a democratic society. The analysis of statement No. 2 shows a significant response (χ2=798.0, p<0.05) of the majority of graduates (Always=35%, Mostly=39%, and mean=3.97) about consider that it is their duty to contribute to society and community. The analysis of statement No.3 shows a significant response (χ2=724.6, p<0.05) of the majority of graduates (Always=35%, Mostly=36%, and mean=3.95) about recognize that it is government’s job to provide them basic facilities (such as electricity, gas, water supply and telephone etc) and in return they have to pay the tax in order to help government. The analysis of statement No. 4 shows a significant response (χ2=682.5, p<0.05) of the majority of graduates (Always=36%, Mostly=34%, and mean=3.94) about consider that it is their duty to involve in community e.g. they could make the town a better place by cleaning it up. The analysis of statement No. 5 shows a significant response (χ2=615.2,
p<0.05) of the majority of graduates (Always=33%, Mostly=33%, and mean=3.86) about try their best to contribute for the town events. The analysis of statement No. 6 shows a significant response (χ2=682.3, p<0.05) of the majority of graduates (Always=30%, Mostly=39%, and mean=3.86) about respect other people’s property. The analysis of statement No.7 shows a significant response (χ2=740.4, p<0.05) of the majority of graduates (Always=30%, Mostly=40%, and mean=3.88) about care for the common good. The analysis of statement No.8 shows a significant response (χ2=675.4, p<0.05) of the majority of graduates (Always=32%, Mostly=37%, and mean=3.89) about respect the cultural heritage of their country i.e. they will have to respect the heroes, the prophets, the sages and saints of their country.
Table3: Reliability(Promise-keeping)asanAspectofCitizenshipamongUniversityGraduates
ExpectedFrequency=300 p=0.000, *Significant at 0.05
Table 3 shows the graduates’ reliability (promise-keeping) as an aspect of citizenship. The analysis of statement No. 1 shows a significant response (χ2=686.0, p<0.05) of the majority of graduates (Always=28%, Mostly=40%, and mean=3.83) about do their all efforts to fulfill commitments and promises. The analysis of statement No.2 shows a significant response (χ2=612.5, p<0.05) of the majority of graduates (Always=29%, Mostly=37%, and mean=3.83) about try their best to keep their promises fairly and honestly. The analysis of statement No.3 shows a significant response (χ2=662.6, p<0.05) of the majority of graduates (Always=27%, Mostly=40%, and mean=3.81) about do not try to rationalize noncompliance. The analysis of statement No. 4 shows a significant response (χ2=671.1, p<0.05) of the majority of graduates (Always=29%, Mostly=37%, and mean=3.85) about before making a promise they think about unknown or future events that could make it difficult, undesirable or impossible. The analysis of statement No. 5 shows a significant response (χ2=583.7, p<0.05) of the majority of graduates (Always=31%, Mostly=35%, and mean=3.83) about avoid unclear commitments (i.e. when they make a promise, the other person understands what they are committing to do).
The present research was carried out to explore the attributes of good citizenship among university graduates: a Pakistani case. Results of the research concerning the objective of the study i.e. to explore the attributes of good citizenship among university graduates were discussed below:
The university graduates responses significantly favored their acceptance as well as obedience. Their responses showed that they extensively keep a positive outlook and avoid becoming cruel or insensitive (χ2=628.0, p<0.05). They were notably prudent and self-disciplined with their health, emotions, time and money (χ2=797.9, p<0.05), and were avoided using threats or physical force to get what they want or to express anger (χ2=718.2, p<0.05). Similarly, at significant level the university graduates accepted individual differences and beliefs without prejudice (χ2=739.7, p<0.05), work out self-discipline, limiting obsession and enthusiasm to have a huge vision and improved decision (χ2=652.5, p<0.05), had significantly contributed to society and perform civic duty (χ2=722.6, p<0.05), and tried their best to perform public responsibility by doing more than their reasonable part to make the public job, at the present and in the future (χ2=622.0, p<0.05). These findings were in line with the findings of research conducted by Kahne, Westheimer and Rogers (2000), Saltmarsh (1996).
The university graduates responses drastically privileged their civic participation and morality. Their responses showed that they significantly like to perform their public responsibility by staying knowledgeable on issues regarding rights and compulsions as an associate of the society and of a independent public (χ2=711.4, p<0.05). They were significantly consider that it is their duty to contribute to society and community (χ2=798.0, p<0.05), and recognized that it is government’s work to offer them fundamental conveniences and in response citizens should reimburse the tax for the purpose to assist government (χ2=724.6, p<0.05). Likewise, at significant level they consider that it is their duty to involve in community e.g. they might build the city an improved place by cleaning it up (χ2=682.5, p<0.05), tried their best to contribute for the town events (χ2=615.2, p<0.05), and respect other people’s property (χ2=682.3, p<0.05). They had momentous care about the common good (χ2=740.4, p<0.05) and considerably admire the cultural heritage of their motherland (χ2=675.4, p<0.05). These findings were in line with the findings of research conducted by Teixeira (2011), Goren (1997), Soss (2002), Skocpol (2004), Mettler (2007), Marshall (1973) and Tocqueville (2010).
The university graduates responses appreciably favored their reliability (promise-keeping). Their responses showed that they significantly do their all efforts to fulfill commitments and promises (χ2=686.0, p<0.05). They considerably tried their best to keep their promises fairly and honestly (χ2=612.5, p<0.05), and do not radically try to rationalize noncompliance (χ2=662.6, p<0.05). Similarly, at significant level before making a promise the university graduates imagine about unidentified or upcoming actions that could make it complex, unwanted or impracticable (χ2=671.1, p<0.05), and avoided unclear commitments (i.e. when graduates have a commitment, the other people recognized what they are willing to perform), (χ2=583.7, p<0.05). These findings were in line with the findings of research conducted by Callan (1997) and Kahne, Westheimer and Rogers (2000).
On the basis of the research findings and discussion it is concluded that university graduates were compassionate and devoted with other society members. They tried their best to vindicate others for their shortcoming, resolve disagreements, and deal with anger peacefully without aggression; have an optimistic outlook and avoid becoming malicious or insensitive. They were cautious for their health, emotions, time and money; avoid using terrorization or physical force to get what they want and accept individual differences and beliefs without prejudice. Like good citizens, university graduates contribute to society, perform civic duty and try their best to do public job, at present and in the up comings. And also like to perform their civic duty by staying knowledgeable on matters relating to rights and compulsions. They recognize that it is government’s work to offer them fundamental conveniences and in response they have to give the tax for the purpose to assist government.
Being good citizens, graduates admire other people’s property; regard the cultural heritage of their motherland and have firm faith in the welfare of the country and society. They recognized that the imperative quality of a good citizen is patriotism; has a real love for the motherland. Compliance to laws is the important public duty of a citizen and society can make no progress if the people have no respect of laws. So graduates never try to resist a law and believed in changing unjustified law by constitutional means. They admire the autonomy of others and tried their best to tell others good choices about their lives; never think to use or manipulate others and considered it very bad to abuse or mistreat anyone. Having good moral conduct, graduates try their best to fulfill commitments and endeavor to keep their promises honestly. They evade unclear commitments and before making a promise they imagine about unidentified or upcoming proceedings that could make it complicated, objectionable or unfeasible.
In the light of the above discussed consequences it is quite certain to suggest few imperative recommendations that are; the administration of entire current institutions of higher education may consider it mandatory to establish citizenship education as a crucial discipline and try best to facilitate it by operating all the consistent resources. It may feasible to integrate the citizenship education like a requisite portion of the syllabus from basics to the higher levels of educational system. It would be probable to create a civic atmosphere within the society and in all the didactic institutions that may supportive to emphasize the magnitude of citizenship among all categories of populace. There is a strong need of awareness about citizenship. Subsequently a general campaign for the understanding of citizenship along with the provision of civic services up to higher institutes may be processed right through Pakistan.
Ahmad, I. (2003). Education for democratic citizenship and peace. Washington, D.C. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED475576).
Annette, J., & McLaughlin, T. (2005). “Citizenship and Higher Education in the UK.” In Citizenship and Higher Education:TheRolesofUniversitiesinCommunitiesandSociety. Eds., 56–72.
Elms, M. (2011). Alessonincitizenship.UNICEF. NY:
Fogelman, K. (2001). Education for democratic citizenship in schools, in education, Autonomy and democratic citizenship:philosophyonchangingworld.London: Taylor and Frances.
Fowler, S. M. & Blohm, J. M. (2011). Ananalysisofmethodsforinterculturaltraining.
Gearon, L. (2015). Learning to teach citizenship in the secondary school: A companion to school experience: Second edition.
Gloppen, S., Rakner & Tostensen, A. (2003). Responsivenessto theConcernsof thePoorand Accountability to the CommitmenttoPovertyReduction,Michelson Institute.
Government of Pakistan Ministry of Education. (2007). National curriculum for Pakistan studies grades IX-X. Retrieved from http://www.moe.gov.pk/.
Keller, J., Nelson, S., & Wick, R. (2003). Care ethics, service-learning, and social change. Michigan Journal of CommunityServiceLearning,10(1),39-50.
Latham, A. A. (2003). Liberal education for global citizenship: reviewing Macalester’s traditions of public scholarship and civiclearning.Macalester College, Project Pericles.
Matsuda, N. (2013). “Higher Education for ‘Citizens’: Universities in Citizenship Education.” Journal of Law and PoliticalScience40:453–89.
Michigan Department of Education (1998). About State Government .Public Sector Consultants. (www.michigan.gov/documents/Dissemination_Important_Info_131976_7.pdf.).
Moore, M. & G. Teskey (2006). The CAR Framework: Capability, Accountability, and Responsiveness: What Do These Terms Mean, Individually and Collectively? A Discussion Note for DFID Governance and Conflict
Advisers, DFID Governance Retreat, 14-17 November.
Ornstein, A. & Hunskins, F. (2016). Curriculum:Foundations,PrinciplesandIssues.New York: Pearson.
Saravanavel, J. & Ramasamy S. (2011). Geospatial Mapping and Visualization of Subsurface Structures,
InternationalGeoinformaticsResearch&DevelopmentJournal,2,1-8.
Smith, G. (2002). TheImportanceofPatriotism.Omnibus online.
Tsuchiyama, K., & Ohyano, O. (2008). Chiiki Kokyo Seisaku o Ninau Jinzai Ikusei: Sono Genjo to Kadai
(Educationandtrainingforlocalpublichuman resourcedevelopment). Tokyo: Nihon Hyōron Sha.
UNESCO. (1995). Declaration and integrated framework of action on education for peace, human rights and democracy. USA.
UNIS. (2004). Throughout History Anti-Semitism Unique Manifestation of Hatred, Intolerance, and Persecution Says Secretary-General in Remarks to Headquarters Seminar.
http://www.unis.unvienna.org/unis/pressrels/2004/sgsm9375.html.
Vernon, L. & Tomas R. (2010). TheManandHisWork;Bilingual Review Press.
Veugelers, W. (2007). “Creating Critical-Democratic Citizenship Education: Empowering Humanity and
Democracy in Dutch Education.” Compare: AJournalofComparativeEducation37:105–19.