Editorial: Reimagining teacher education for the future – global perspectives at the intersection of change, hope and crisis

Special issue: Reimagining teacher education for the future – global perspectives at the intersection of change, hope and crisis

This special issue departs from a question that is practical, ethical and political: what does teachers’ work become when education is called to respond to global change, multiple crises and the fragile work of hope? Around the world, teachers and teacher educators are asked to help learners to make sense of climate emergency, war, displacement, inequality, technological acceleration, resurgent nationalisms and the everyday forms of exclusion that shape educational life. Yet they are also asked to do so in institutions marked by uneven resources, policy contradictions, curricular pressures and contested public debate. To reimagine teacher education for our futures, then, is not simply to add new content to existing programmes. It is to reconsider the purposes, relationships and conditions through which education might support more just, peaceful and sustainable ways of living together (Bourn, 2021; Ojala, 2017; Stein et al., 2022).

This issue takes forward the agenda opened by the call for contributions and perspectives on teachers’ work at the intersection of change, crises and hope. This framing goes beyond the sense that a crisis is too large, too complex or too politically charged for education to address. It resists the promise that global problems can be solved through individual goodwill or decontextualised best practices. The contributions here ask how educators can stay with complexity, cultivate agency and build hope without denying the realities of injustice (Andreotti et al., 2011; Freire, 2021; hooks, 1994).

Several articles address the pedagogical labour of reflexivity. In ‘Ethical global issues pedagogy in practice: Educators’ reflexive work in critical global citizenship education’, Benavides-Lahnstein and Pashby (2026) examine ethical global issues pedagogy in practice and show how educators value resources that help them engage with global issues without collapsing them into solutions-orientated responses. Their analysis conveys an understanding of critical global citizenship education as being dependent, not only on what teachers know, but also on how they navigate tensions, uncertainties and competing demands in the classroom, as well as ways to handle rapid continuous change. Reflexivity here is a form of professional, rather than abstract, work, the thread that holds together ethical responsibility, epistemic agency, pedagogical judgement and the need for social cohesion and community spirit.

In ‘Shaping tomorrow’s educators for a globalised world: How institutional factors foster the implementation of transformative education’, Tishkus and Streitwieser (2026) take up the institutional conditions of teachers’ professional work by investigating how transformative education is embedded in teacher education programmes. Their study demonstrates that global citizenship education cannot be sustained by isolated commitments or occasional course units. Where social justice, cultural awareness and global perspectives are systematically integrated, transformative education becomes part of the programme ecology. Where administrative support is limited, resources are scarce or political pressures narrow the curriculum, engagement with global citizenship education principles becomes fragmented. This contribution therefore shifts attention from individual educators to the systems that enable or constrain their agency.

In ‘Story, transformation and global citizenship education: A narrative and hopeful approach to pedagogy’, Dolan (2026) foregrounds the narrative, affective and imaginative dimensions of global learning by arguing for the integration of story, transformative learning and critical global citizenship education. She does so by discussing storytelling not as an illustrative technique but as a way of knowing and a catalyst for critical consciousness. In times of polycrisis, story can create mirrors, windows and doors: it can help learners encounter themselves, recognise others and imagine futures beyond the present order. The article situates narrative pedagogy within postcolonial critique and ethical unlearning, reminding us that hope requires more than inspiration; it requires the capacity to question inherited assumptions and participate in collective transformation.

The issue also attends to the spaces in which global learning takes place. In ‘Teaching across borders: Inclusive pedagogy and critical media practice in a global online classroom’, Hollingshead et al. (2026) reflect on teaching critical media studies in a large multicultural online classroom in Canada. Their collaborative account shows how digital and media pedagogies can be mobilised to connect everyday communication practices with the infrastructures, institutions and power relations that shape them. Although the course is not framed primarily as development or sustainability education, the authors demonstrate how quality education and reduced inequalities can be mainstreamed through inclusive, decolonial and critical digital pedagogy. Ultimately, the article is an invitation to the readership to see online education not as a delivery mode, but as a contested global learning environment in which cultural location, media power and pedagogical care intersect.

In ‘Challenges faced by Zimbabwean high school history teachers in teaching history for global citizenship education’, Tsekwende et al. (2026) discuss and analyse a study of Zimbabwean high school history teachers. Their findings show that curricular tensions, sensitive topics, resource limitations, examination pressure and fear of political labelling can lead teachers to avoid aspects of global citizenship education. This contribution is a reminder that global learning is always situated. Calls for critical dialogue, historical consciousness and civic agency must be read alongside the risks teachers may face when they address controversial knowledge. Protecting teachers’ professional autonomy is therefore central, rather than peripheral, to democratic and transformative education.

In ‘Dilemmas and ambiguities in the experience of international volunteering: Responses and transformative processes in global citizenship education’, Moser and Zadra (2026) extend the discussion into informal learning. Their use of phenomenological vignettes reveals that encounters with alterity do not automatically produce transformation. Volunteers may reproduce existing norms, avoid discomfort or engage in deeper processes of reflection and change. The article’s attention to privilege, postcolonial power relations and emotional engagement complicates accounts of mobility and service by showing that experiential learning requires structure, critical reflection and opportunities to work through ambiguity, given that the aim is to contribute to global citizenship rather than reproduce the very inequalities it seeks to address.

In ‘From policy to practice: Embedding global citizenship education in initial teacher education in Ireland’, Filippi and Titley (2026) bring forward a movement from policy aspiration to pedagogical enactment. This change in approach is also underlined in this special issue by Tishkus and Streitwieser (2026). In this study, the case of Ireland is discussed as a policy-rich context in which global citizenship education is present in national frameworks. The findings of the study show that there are tensions between policy and practice, as the pedagogical enactment of global citizenship education remains shaped by conceptual multiplicity and uneven institutional engagement. Therefore, the gap between policy intention and educational practice persists. This means that, although policy is formally present, it does not guarantee meaningful implementation. To bridge the gap, the article argues that the alignment of policy, pedagogy and experience is required if global citizenship education is to move beyond rhetoric and become part of teachers’ everyday capacities to respond to uncertain futures.

Finally, in ‘Global competence in Flemish secondary education: Insights and critiques from a PISA perspective’, Lies Sercu’s (2026) study of global competence in Flemish secondary education offers an important assessment-orientated perspective. By adapting and critiquing the OECD PISA 2018 global competence framework, the article identifies disparities linked to gender, educational track, socio-economic status and school diversity. Its findings highlight structural inequalities in access to global citizenship education while also questioning the cultural assumptions and methodological limits of dominant assessment tools. In doing so, it asks: how can we evaluate global learning in ways that recognise context, support equity and move beyond awareness towards civic agency and political engagement?

Overall, the articles in this special issue move across teacher education, schools, higher education, online learning, history education, volunteering and assessment and across national and institutional contexts and present-day global education. Despite the emergent tensions, the studies converge towards a shared concern: how educators can prepare learners not for an abstract global future, but for futures already being shaped by inequality, interdependence and ecological limits. The accompanying book reviews extend this conversation by situating sustainability, environmental learning, interculturality, ethics and justice within longer histories of educational thought and practice.

The view of teachers’ work that emerges is relational, critical and imaginative. Teachers are curriculum makers, interpreters of policy, designers of learning environments, mediators of difficult knowledge and companions in processes of unlearning. Teacher education, in turn, must become a space where future and practising educators can develop the knowledge, courage and collective support needed to engage with global issues responsibly. This means creating programmes and institutions that do more than name global citizenship, sustainability or inclusion. It means building ecosystems in which educators can practise reflexivity, tell and analyse stories, use technology critically, address controversial histories, support intercultural encounters and challenge unequal access to global learning.

Within this context, hope is pedagogical and political practice. It is sustained through awareness, agency, interconnectedness and peaceful action, and the commitment to keep education open to more just possibilities. Reimagining teachers’ work and teacher education for our futures requires both critique and care. It requires institutions that support educators, pedagogies that acknowledge complexity and research that focuses on the lived conditions of teaching.

Our aim is that this special issue is a contribution to that work as well as an invitation to continue thinking, teaching and learning at the difficult, necessary intersection of change, crisis and hope.