Using teachers’ prior knowledge as the foundation for collaborative policy development: an Australian case study

ABSTRACT

Too often international policies, such as the OECD PISA Global Competence framework, are incorporated into domestic education policies without consultation with school leaders or classrooms teachers. This “top down” approach means the educators are often obliged to implement policies they may not fully understand or have the professional learning to implement successfully. This paper draws from research that explored an alternative approach where a group of Australian school leaders and classroom teachers were provided with the opportunity to collaboratively translate the PISA Framework into a state-based, whole-school approach. The paper reports particularly on the results of a survey, undertaken prior to the commencement of this collaboration, to identify the participants’ existing conceptualizations of global competence. The survey questions and data analysis framed by Keltchermans’ Personal Interpretive Framework explored how the participants’ conceptualizations were shaped by their personal beliefs and contexts. Data gathered showed alignment between the teachers’ conceptualizations, their known pedagogical frameworks, and the Australian Curriculum, particularly the general capabilities and the cross-curriculum priority of Sustainability. This acts as a reminder of the need to ensure that policy is reflective of its context and developed from the ground up, even if it is developed in response to international initiatives.

KEYWORDS:

• Policy
• contextualization
• collaboration
• teachers’ beliefs
• global competence

Introduction

Teachers’ and school leaders’ responses to new policy requirements and how these affect their practice are impacted by a myriad of factors: the country and context in which they are situated; the system or school requirements; the resources available; the students who make up their classes; their personal knowledge, skill level and beliefs – the list is endless. Key elements influencing their responses are often: the impetus for the policy change; the way in which it is introduced; the professional learning provided to support its implementation; and the degree of agency the educators feel they have in translating the policy into practice (Biesta et al., 2015; Ham & Dekkers, 2019; Schweisfurth, 2013, 2015; Westbrook et al., 2013).

The impetus for domestic education policy change is often in response to global issues such as climate change and the COVID-19 pandemic or the introduction of international initiatives such as the UNESCO’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 4, and the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development’s (OECD) Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) Global Competence Framework (2018), and its associated assessment (Edwards et al., 2020; Rautalin et al., 2019). Although these international initiatives provide impetus for developing the type of education that prepares students for the opportunities and challenges of their globalized world, there is a danger that they will be implemented with little consultation or adaption to the needs of the local contexts (Han & Zhu, 2022; Wang, 2023). This can result in school leaders and classroom teachers reacting negatively to the policy, feeling underprepared, implementing it haphazardly, and/or having justified concerns as to its relevance to their practice and students.

The negative outcomes of this type of “top down” approach to policy design and implementation is well documented in the literature. Such approaches often relegate teachers to a “passive role”, creating a gap which inhibits their ability to conceptualize, interpret and implement the required policy in their schools and classrooms (Harris et al., 2017; Schweisfurth, 2013, 2015, 2017; Spring, 2015; UNESCO, 2022; Westbrook et al., 2013). Part of the reason for this gap is that teachers’ contextualization of policy is based on their existing knowledge, beliefs, values, experiences and understanding of their context (DiBiase, 2015; Kelchtermans, 2009, 2017).

Kelchtermans (2009; 2017) posits that the practices of teachers cannot be separated from the individual, their beliefs and their context, particularly as context is socially constructed. Through research, based on teachers’ narratives, Keltchermans devised the Personal Interpretive Framework as a lens through which the interaction of teachers’ beliefs and values and their response to change or reform can be examined (2009). The framework is constructed with two domains: the Personal Interpretive (PI) domain, which is how teachers view themselves and the personal beliefs that inform what and why they teach; and the Subjective Educational Theory (SET) which is the teachers’ understanding of the context in which they teach, gained through their experiences and practices. Kelchtermans (2014) theorizes that when a new initiative, such as a new educational policy, practice, or programme is introduced, a teacher first assesses it through their PI, then considers how it relates to their context, professional knowledge, and experience, their SET. After these two evaluative processes have been undertaken, if there is perceived alignment, the initiative is then explored for trial.

One way to improve relevance and authenticity, and provide a solid conceptual basis for the development of policy is to ensure that the design is based on “deep collaboration” between policy designers and teachers at all levels (Harris et al., 2017). This deep collaboration should include a negotiated, transparent process from inception to enactment with continuous feedback mechanisms for the teachers and school leaders involved. This paper suggests that such processes should begin with ascertaining the existing knowledge and understanding of the teachers and school leaders, including examining how they conceptualize any key terms or concepts. This is particularly important when developing domestic policies based on international initiatives, specifically in the field of education for global competence/global citizenship.

Although there is international consensus that schools need to foster a particular set of knowledge, skills, values and attitudes (Mansilla & Wilson, 2020; UNESCO, 2022) in order to prepare young people for engagement and employment in a globalized world, the terms used to frame these attributes and this type of education are much contested (Zhao, 2020). Terms including global competence, global citizenship, 21st century skills, 4Cs or 6Cs (Dehli, 2020; European, 2014; OECD, 2018, 2020, 2022; World Bank, 2019; World Economic Forum, 2018) can be identified and are often used interchangeably in international, national, and state education policy and curricula. Academics note that the origins, foci and intent of these terms vary (Tichnor-Wagner et al., 2019), however, perspectives at school and classroom level are more pragmatic with educators explaining that the term used is less important than ensuring there is common language and understanding in their context (Menzie-Ballantyne & Ham, 2023).

For this reason, this research took a similar pragmatic approach (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). It acknowledged but steered away from definitional or philosophical debates about the term global competence and instead focused on the teachers’ understanding and conceptualization of the term in their real-world contexts, on the basis that this should be the starting point for collaboration (Kelly & Cordeiro, 2020). It started from a point of acceptance that: the OECD PISA Global Competence agenda is influencing domestic policy in Australia; teachers are being presented with the responsibility for interpreting and implementing education for global competence in their classrooms (Ramos et al., 2021); and global competence was the term and framework being presented to the pilot participants as the foundation for their collaboration. The term global competence is therefore used for the rest of this paper.

Collaboratively designing a whole-school global competence framework

Through a survey of their stakeholders, an Australian department of education identified that their strategic plan should focus on the global nature of their students’ lives. The resultant plan outlined the need to provide inclusive schools that offered opportunities to build critical and creative thinkers who could communicate effectively and take positive action in their local and global communities. Rather than working from scratch to operationalize this plan, it was decided to use the OECD PISA Global Competence Framework as a starting point, but collaborate with local teachers and school leaders to determine how this framework could be contextualized to a state-based, whole-school approach.

This was the impetus for a pilot programme that involved teachers and school leaders from 22 schools working collaboratively with department staff, change management consultants, and academics as critical friends. The pilot programme was conducted in two phases, a year apart. Participant schools were selected from a competitive application process. Each of the 22 schools (12 in Phase 1 and 10 in Phase 2) provided a team of three: a “passionate” teacher, a curriculum leader, and a school leader. The total number of participants was 66.

In the first phase, the selection of schools was based on criteria designed to identify those perceived to be “further down the path” of implementing global competence in their contexts. These schools were chosen specifically as the first group to garner their expertise in the design of the framework, and to provide insights and advice that would be useful to schools just beginning their global competence journey. The second cohort was also made up of a majority of experienced schools but with a couple that were at a beginning stage. This paper reports specifically on the results of a pre-survey conducted with participants in both Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the pilot programme to determine their initial knowledge and conceptualization of global competence. It explains how these results cyclically shaped the professional learning workshops conducted as part of the collaboration.

The Australian context

As this pilot programme and its associated research was conducted in an Australian state, it is important to identify and explore the possibilities for understanding and implementing education for global competence in this context. Educating students to “understand their responsibilities as global citizens and know how to affect positive change” is acknowledged as part of Goal 2 of the Alice Springs (Mparntwe) Education Declaration (Education Council, 2019, p. 6). Australia’s three-dimensional curriculum of eight key learning areas, seven general capabilities and three cross-curriculum priorities is designed to equip young people to achieve these national educational goals (ACARA, 2020). However, the degree to which these aspirational goals and curricula potential leads to effective global competence education in the classroom is a matter of contention (Lingard, 2018; Zhang et al., 2023). In line with the pragmatic approach of this research, such contention will be left to others, however, it is important to note that the teachers participating in the pilot programme would have had exposure to both the Declaration and the three dimensions of the Australian Curriculum. In addition, those in secondary, particularly senior secondary contexts, would be familiar with the state-based “21st Century Skills” framework (reference withheld for de-identification, 2019).

The survey

A pragmatic research approach allows for the use of a range of instruments to facilitate examination of the topic in light of its context (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). In this research, ethical clearance was obtained (No. 0000021987) allowing the authors to gather data throughout the pilot programme through their roles as participant observers and critical friends. This paper focuses on the first round of data gathered, namely results of the pre-survey. Undertaken prior to the teachers participating in Phase 1 and 2 of the collaboration process, the survey sought to identify the teachers’ existing understanding of the term global competence and establish if, and where, they saw it in their contexts. The survey was framed by the research questions:

• What are the teachers’ existing interpretations of global competence?

• What attributes do they perceive as part of global competence?

• Where do they most frequently observe global competence in their schools and classrooms?

To allow the collection of rich, qualitative data, the questions were largely open ended (O’Leary, 2021). The survey questions were informed by Keltchermans’ Framework and the authors’ previous application of it with teachers in the context of a “top down” approach to educational reform in Nepal (Ham & Dekkers, 2019; Ham & Menzie-Ballantyne, 2021). The first two open-ended questions were designed to specifically explore the teachers’ Personal Interpretive (PI) domain including their existing definition of global competence and the attributes they conceptualized or valued as part of being globally competent. The third question used a ranking task that aimed to explore the teachers’ Subjective Educational Theory (SET). It was designed based on specific contextual facets of implementation identified by teachers in the authors’ previous studies including, amongst many others, curriculum, assessment, pedagogy, relationships and engagement with students (Ham & Dekkers, 2019; Ham & Menzie-Ballantyne, 2021).

Responses were thematically coded using Bruan and Clarke (2022) six-step process of familiarization, generating initial codes, searching for themes, reviewing themes, defining and naming themes, and presenting results. Results of this analysis were cyclically used to inform the design of the professional learning workshops, the framework, and other elements of the pilot programme, but equally importantly help fill a gap in research regarding teachers’ conceptualization and implementation of education for global competence. The data presented in this paper is a combination of the responses from the two cohorts. It does not draw comparisons between the two cohorts as this was not the intent of the survey and there were no significant difference between the two data sets.

Survey results

In total 66 teachers completed the survey (Phase 1 n = 36, Phase 2 n = 30) which accounts for 100% of the pilot participants. Initial demographic questions (Q1–3) indicated that the participants were experienced teachers (52 with over 10 years experience), predominantly from secondary schools, in both metropolitan and regional locations. Question 4 asked participants: how would you define global competence? An initial reading of responses to this question indicated a distinct alignment with phrases and concepts from existing educational policies, curricula, or frameworks familiar to teachers in Australia. Thematic coding of these responses confirmed the initial codes, revealing five distinct themes. These themes are presented in Table 1, listed from most frequent to least frequent, each with a representative quote.

Table 1. Themes evident in teachers’ definition of the term global competence.

Theme	Description of theme	Representative quote
Theme 1	Language drawn directly from the PISA framework	“The ability to understand and take action around global issues, the ability to understand, have empathy and work with people from other cultures”.
Theme 2	Language drawn directly from the Australian General Capabilities	“Global competence is to have intercultural understanding … it involves critical and creative thinking”.
Theme 3	Direct citation of the state-based 21^st Century Skills	“Global competence is learning and being able to use the 21st Century Skills which transcend individual cultures”.
Theme 4	Connection to local and global contexts, curriculum content areas, lists of skills, attitudes and values	“Within the school setting I have taught social justice issues with students. Encouraging students to have empathy for social, emotional and cultural differences”.
Theme 5	Melded concepts that sit outside of existing frameworks	“Sharing ideas and knowledge with colleagues”. “Being information literate”.

Teachers most frequently defined global competence using words that aligned with the PISA framework (OECD, 2018). Given the exact phrasing used, it is possible that, despite being asked for their definition, they searched the internet for the “correct” definition and then copied and pasted or paraphrased. The second most frequent theme was made up of definitions containing language from the Australian Curriculum’s general capabilities. This would suggest that the teachers had made connections between the concept of global competence and where it is embedded or aligned with the mandated Australian curriculum. Interestingly these connections were also evident in their responses to Question 5, which asked them to list up to six attributes of a globally competent citizen, but were not replicated in their responses to the question asking where they observed specific attributes of global competence in their schools and classrooms.

The third theme evidenced a connection between the teachers’ definition of global competence and “the 21st Century Skills” identified by the curriculum organization of the state in which the teachers work. The language of “the 21st Century Skills” is constantly communicated to and within schools, particularly in senior secondary settings. It is hypothesized that the prevalence of the language related to “the 21st Century Skills” may be a result of the number of survey participants working in secondary contexts. It is suggested that the same frequency may not have been evident if a majority of the teachers participating were from primary settings.

Theme 4 evidenced links to: key learning areas from the Australian Curriculum, particularly the humanities and social sciences; attributes often included in well-being programmes; and references related to diversity within the student population. As can be seen from the representative quote in Table 1, the codes in this theme included a higher number of terms related to attitudes and values (empathy, acceptance, self-aware, willingness to explore) than those found in Themes 1, 2, 3 and 5, which were largely centred on knowledge and skills. The final theme consisted of concepts not aligned to any of the other themes and/or related to actions taken, and made up a very small number of responses (less than 10%).

Question 5 asked teachers to list up to six attributes of a globally competent citizen. Figure 1 presents a graphical representation of all data gathered from this question, while Table 2 presents the top 22 most frequently used words with examples of the contexts and phrases in which they were used.

Figure 1. Wordcloud indicating global competence attributes listed.

Table 2. Most frequently listed attributes of global competence.

Frequency	Words	Contexts and phrases
18	Communicate	Communicate with a range of audiences, communicate clearly, effective communication, good communicators, communicate in different modes and methods
15	Empathy	Empathise, empathy and compassion, empathy and understanding
13	Understanding	Understand impact of actions, understanding and tolerance of others, intercultural understanding, international or global understanding, understand differing perspectives
	Critical thinking	No variations
12	Skills	Comparative thinking skills, communication skills, ICT skills, social skills, listening skills, cross-cultural skills, team skills, use higher order thinking skills
10	Collaborative	Collaborate, collaboration, working collaboratively, willing to engage with others to collaborate
	Openminded	No variations
9	Perspective	Multiple perspectives, value and respect other’s perspectives, open to other’s perspectives
8	Cultural	Culture, culturally aware, culturally appropriate
7	Adaptable	Adaptability, adaptation
	Respectful	Value and respect
	Character	No variations
	Action	Take action, action sustainable practices, meaningful action, active citizenship, responsive action, responsible action
6	Appreciate	Appreciate difference and diversity, appreciate culture, appreciate global perspectives
	Creative	Creative thinking, creative problem solving, being creative, creativity
	Resilient	Resilience
	Value	Valuing, values
5	Flexible	Flexibility
	Literate	Digital literacy, cultural literacy
	Problem solver	Problem solve, problem solving
4	Curious	Inquisitive and curious mind
	Inclusive	Respectful and inclusive, think inclusively, lead inclusively

Overall, the results showed a wide range of words used by teachers to identify global competence attributes. Some words were embedded with others to provide contexts and specification, while a small number of words, critical thinking, openminded and character for example, were listed as stand-alone attributes. The lists of attributes that each teacher submitted were compared to see if there were patterns in the grouping of attributes identified. In the main, there did not appear to be any consistent clusters of attributes across individual responses, however, there were six participants who listed the same attributes: communicate, critical thinking, creativity, citizenship, collaboration and character. These are the “6 Cs” foundational to the New Pedagogies for Deep Learning (NPDL) (Fullan et al., 2018), the pedagogical framework used by two of the pilot schools. It is likely that the six teachers from these schools had aligned their understanding of the attributes of global competence with the NPDL framework they were actively implementing in their contexts.

In the latter half of the survey, participants were asked to indicate by ranking, from most common to least common, where they observed particular global competence attributes in their context: Through pedagogy; In the curriculum; In assessment; In students’ interaction with me and others; and Other. The attributes were sourced from the Australian Curriculum general capabilities: including Critical and Creative Thinking; Intercultural Understanding; Ethical Understanding; and social awareness, social management, effective communication and collaboration sourced from the general capability of Personal and Social Capability. Education for sustainable development was sourced from the cross-curriculum priority of Sustainability. Table 3 outlines the teachers’ most common to least common observances.

Table 3. Observations of global competence attributes in context.

Attribute	Most common	Common	Least common
Critical thinking	Through pedagogy	In the curriculum	In assessment
Creative thinking	Through pedagogy	In students’ interaction with me and others	In assessment
Intercultural understanding	In students’ interaction with me and others	In the curriculum	In assessment
Ethical understanding	In students’ interaction with me and others	Through pedagogy	In assessment
Social awareness	In students’ interaction with me and others	Through pedagogy	In assessment
Social management	In students’ interaction with me and others	Through pedagogy	In assessment
Sustainable development	In the curriculum	Through pedagogy	In assessment
Effective communication and collaboration	In students’ interaction with me and others	Through the curriculum	In assessment

Clear patterns are evident in the teachers’ observations of the listed attributes in their contexts with the attributes most commonly identified “In students” interactions with me and others’ and rarely seen “In assessment”. As previously highlighted, few teachers saw the attributes in the curriculum despite using the language of the general capabilities in their own list of attributes of globally competent citizens. Interestingly no teacher selected “Other” as an option, instead all teachers utilized the options given.

Discussion

Prior to discussing the results outlined above, it is important to reiterate the original purpose of the pre-surveys, namely to understand the teachers’ existing conceptualization of global competence and its attributes, and identify where they most frequently observed the attributes of global competence in their schools. This information was then used cyclically to inform the design of the professional learning workshops, the framework, and other elements of Phases 1 and 2 of the pilot programme. Gathering insights into the teachers’ initial understandings improved the relevance of the workshops by leveraging existing areas of expertise and giving the teachers agency in their own learning (Leijen et al., 2020). This enhanced the authenticity of the programme providing the pilot programme facilitators with genuine insights to shape the specific outcomes they wished to achieve, i.e., the development of a state-based, whole-school global competence framework and associated resources Enabling the teachers to become active agents in their learning and in the collaborative framework development process amplified their roles as the interpretators, translators and enactors of policy in their schools (Herbert, 2020; Sullivan & Morrison, 2014). Involving teachers at all stages of policy design and implementation in this way improves the usability and quality of the outcome as it is based on expert knowledge of context (Spreen et al., 2019).

Developing an open and equitable collaboration between the teachers, facilitators and researchers from the outset was a deliberate choice in the design of the pilot programme, as it acknowledged that each group had differing skill sets and experience that could make valuable contributions to the development process. The survey results revealed the differing ways the teachers defined global completence and conceptualized the term in their contexts. Understanding these differences contributed to both the design of the workshops and the design of the framework. For example, the finding that the most frequent response was to copy and paste the definition of global competence from the internet may have indicated teachers’ previous knowledge of the PISA framework or their lack of understanding. In practice, it highlighted the need for the workshops to start by spending significant time unpacking the PISA definition, as well as exploring and strengthening the connection to context using the connections identified by the teachers in the survey as a basis. It would have been unwise to assume that everyone contextalised and drew connections with their practice in the same way, but equally inappropriate to assume that the teachers had no existing knowledge or understanding of connections to their context. Surveying the teachers’ initial knowledge and conceptualizations allowed the pilot programme to start from a strength-based place (Churchill et al., 2022).

The second example of why the pre-survey was useful is the way the teachers’ differing conceptions and levels of understanding informed the framework design. Knowledge of these differing levels was built into the first workshop where, after unpacking the four dimensions of the PISA framework, the teachers were asked what their implementation might look like at beginning, developing, embedding and leading stages of schools’ and educators’ global competence journey. Leijen et al. (2020) argue that teacher agency results when teachers’ individual capabilities are considered in light of their environmental conditions. It is only through establishing inclusive avenues for teachers’ personal beliefs and their understanding of their educational context that policy development and implementation, and its associated professional learning, can be designed appropriately to provide teachers with agency. Feedback from the workshops and the sense of ownership of the resultant framework indicated that this collaborative approach produced a rich and productive learning experience for all collaborators.

Using Kelcherman’s Personal Interpretive framework (2009) as an overarching lens to review the results of the survey showed a definite pattern of the teachers aligning their conception of global competence and its attributes to known elements of their context, such as the Australian Curriculum, and adopted school frameworks, like the New Pedagogies for Deep Learning (Fullan et al., 2018). An example of this is their common observation of critical and creative thinking in their pedagogy. These findings can be seen as a reflection of the prominence and distinct overlaps of these skills as general capabilities in the Australian Curriculum and in the state-based “21st Century Skills” (reference withheld for de-identification, 2019). As the Australian Curriculum, including the general capabilities, is focused on foundation to year 10 and the “21st Century Skills” are emphasized in secondary, particularly senior secondary, all teachers involved in the pilot programme had exposure to these terms and the skills they convey. In practical terms, identifying that the participants commonly saw critical and creative thinking “In their pedagogy” indicated to the pilot facilitators that these attributes could be used as working examples of how to incorporate education for global competence, as the teachers had already identified this particular connection. Given that the survey responses did not identify this level of incorporation for other attributes, such as intercultural understanding, the pilot facilitators recognized that further work was required to increase familiarity and/or identification of the alignment with existing practices. They also suggested new ways in which such attributes could be incorporated and fostered.

Communication was not included as a term in the participants’ survey definitions of global competence. It was therefore somewhat surprising to see it as the most frequently listed attribute. The participants’ identification of communication as an essential attribute of global competence may explain why they chose “In students” interactions with the teacher and others’ as the category in which they most commonly observed intercultural understanding, ethical understanding, social awareness and management and effective communication and collaboration. This suggests that observations of these attributes are based predominantly on incidental interactions in the participants’ day-to-day school and classroom environments rather than them being the results of activities overtly implemented by the teachers and school leaders. By contrast, observations of ethical understanding and social awareness and management in the category “In pedagogy” suggests that the educators are planning activities to develop these communication-based competencies as part of students’ learning. A notable absence from the “In pedagogy” category was intercultural understanding, supporting anecdotal evidence that there is a need for specific pedagogical training in this area. Interestingly this need was identified by the teachers themselves in the feedback from the pilot programme, subsequently resulting in the development of an online professional learning programme specifically on this topic.

The only attribute most commonly observed “In the curriculum” was sustainable development. Examining this finding through the lens of Keltchermans’ Subjective Educational Theory (SET), it is suggested that this is related to the teachers’ association of the term with the Australian Curriculum cross-curriculum priority of Sustainability. This result is reflective of research by Hill and Dyment (2016) who found that, while teachers are comfortable with sustainability being included as part of the curriculum, they are unsure of pedagogical approaches to teach sustainable practices in the classroom. These findings were also replicated in the workshops and curriculum development work undertaken as part of this pilot programme.

In an alignment with international research (Prowse & Forsyth, 2018), the strongest pattern identified was the limited observation of global competence attributes “In assessment”. This raises concerns as to the emphasis placed on educating for global competence, given the trend to only value that which is assessed (Bradbury, 2014). Not assessing the attributes inherent in the general capabilities impacts the teachers’ ability to report on their students’ global competence development to their parents and school leadership. Research is currently being undertaken in Australia into ways of assessing the general capabilities (Milligan et al., 2020; Scoular et al., 2020) which may address this deficit over time, however, these findings were also discussed in the pilot workshops, encouraging participants to consider ways they could measure their progress using the developing whole-school framework and other school reporting channels.

Limitations

It is acknowledged that this research only involved teachers and school leaders from one state of Australia, and that the participants were predominantly experienced educators from secondary settings. Additionally, over half of the respondents were from schools who had an existing track record in some form of education for global competence and/or global citizenship which will have impacted their survey responses. The teachers volunteered to participate in the pilot which also suggests that they held an existing value of educating for global competence that may not be representative of the wider teaching population.

It is therefore important that this type of research be replicated with teachers who: are in different states and/or countries; are at the beginning of their teaching journey; are based in primary school settings; have had little or no previous exposure to education for global competence/global citizenship; and who are participating in mandated rather than voluntary professional learning programmes. The findings do however provide a insights into how important it is to ensure teachers’ exitising understandings and interpretations of a concept should be at the basis of policy and professional development design. Further comparative studies are needed to develop an overall picture of teachers’ and school leaders’ interpretations of global competence are impacted by the resultant Framework in their context.

Conclusion

The findings outlined in this paper provide insight into how, and why it is important, to ensure that teachers’ existing understanding and conceptualizations of target concepts form the basis of ground up policy development. This is particularly crucial in circumstances where domestic policy is being adapted from an international initiative that may have been shaped by very different circumstances, situations and agendas. Lee and Tan (2018) recommend that “school and department personnel need to work in tandem with teachers to establish a common understanding and buy-in of what professional development might look like in practice’ (2018, p. 1). The pilot programme examined in this paper is one example of “working in tandem”. The fact that the teachers and school leaders volunteered for the pilot indicated that the content and intent of the programme aligned with their Personal Interpretive Framework, i.e., their personal beliefs as to what is important in their teaching.

Examining the findings from the pre-pilot survey through Keltchermans’ Subjective Educational Theory highlighted the connections the participants did and didn’t make between global competence and the curriculum, frameworks and pedagogies used in their contexts. These findings could then be used to shape the pilot workshops and the resultant whole-school framework in authentic and relevant ways. It is therefore suggested that, whilst critical analysis of the overarching philosophical intent of both international and domestic policy agendas is important, it is equally important that the designers of policy and professional learning enable opportunities for the incorporation of teachers’ existing beliefs, interpretations, and capabilities (Spreen et al., 2019). The commitment of the teachers to this pilot programme, even through the challenges of the COVID pandemic, suggests that providing this degree of agency to teachers and school leaders greatly enhances buy-in and the possibility of successful implementation.

Acknowledgements

We wish to acknowledge the teachers and school leaders who volunteered for this pilot and the work they put into creating a framework and resources that support authentic whole-school approaches to embedding education for global competence in their contexts.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the Department of Education International.

Notes on contributors

Miriam Ham

Miriam Ham is a Senior lecturer and Postgraduate Research Coordinator in Education on the Cairns campus of Central Queensland University, Australia. She was awarded a Vice-Chancellor’s Award for Exemplary Practice in Learning and Teaching in 2020 and the Australian College of Educators FNQ Tertiary Educator Excellence in Education Award for 2022. A school teacher of 20 years, Miriam draws on her experience in the teaching of undergraduate and masters teacher preparation units. Her research ranges in contexts internationally and involves working with teacher researchers and other academics in Australia, Nepal, Portugal, Great Britain, Pakistan and Indonesia. Her current research projects focus on exploring how teachers define, teach and their beliefs about global competence in their personal capacities and in their teaching practices in the classrooms. She coleads the research cluster, Empower which is interested in amplifying the voices of educators and researchers from the Global South.

Karena Menzie-Ballantyne

Karena Menzie-Ballantyne is a senior lecturer in education at Central Queensland University, with over two decades of experience researching and teaching in the fields of global competence, global citizenship, and sustainable development. She has worked in both the tertiary and not-for-profit sectors. Her research cluster, Empower: Education for Global Competence and Sustainable Development, investigates how education systems, schools, not-for-profit organizations, and individual teachers interpret and implement the global competence, global citizenship, and education for sustainable development agendas in Australia, Indonesia, New Zealand, Pakistan, and the UK. The cluster is particularly interested in amplifying the voices of educators and researchers from the Global South who are making important contributions to this field.