Shaping tomorrow’s educators for a globalised world: how institutional factors foster the implementation of transformative education

Transformative education and GCED

Transformative education is far from a new concept in the field of education. It is rooted in both the UN SDGs agenda and a number of traditional theories. One of the foundational perspectives is Jack Mezirow’s theory of transformative learning, developed in the 1970s, which argues that learning occurs when individuals critically reflect on their assumptions, experiences and perspectives, leading to a fundamental shift in their worldview (Maharani and Fithriani, 2023; Mezirow and Taylor, 2009). Such critical reflection equips learners with the ability to reassess their beliefs and engage more consciously with the social realities that shape their lives.

A complementary theoretical foundation is provided by Paulo Freire (1970), specifically his concept of ‘problem-posing’ education – a core element of his philosophy of critical pedagogy. Freire rejects hierarchical, teacher-centred models of pedagogy in favour of dialogical, participatory learning environments in which teachers and students act as co-learners. Through dialogue and critical inquiry, education becomes a space for developing critical consciousness and the capacity for social transformation (Freire, 1970, 1973; Zembylas and Keet, 2018). Building on the Freirean perspective, Giroux (2006) conceptualises critical pedagogy as an inherently political approach to education that links knowledge production with civic engagement and social responsibility. From this stance, education plays a central role in preparing learners to critically analyse political, economic and social conditions and to act as responsible citizens within democratic societies (Giroux, 2006).

The notion of transformation can be conceptualised in multiple ways – ranging from practical shifts in curricula to deeper ontological reorientations. In this study, however, transformation is understood primarily through the curriculum and learning outcomes for teacher educators articulated in UNESCO’s (2015) GCED framework. Specifically, transformation is conceptualised across three interrelated domains: cognitive, socio-emotional and behavioural dimensions of learning. In the context of teacher education, this transformative approach is examined through how curriculum and pedagogical practices reflect these dimensions by fostering critical understanding of global issues, cultivating values such as empathy and solidarity and encouraging responsible and ethical engagement with global challenges. Achieving this vision requires teachers to adapt their instruction by aligning curricula, pedagogical strategies, learning materials and educational environments with the social, political, economic and cultural contexts in which students live today (UNESCO, 2021). Within this broader transformative agenda, GCED is considered a key educational framework to foster learners’ awareness of global interconnectedness and a shared sense of humanity (UNESCO, 2015). As a multidimensional educational framework, GCED draws on pedagogical traditions that include human rights education, social justice, peace education, education for sustainable development and education for international understanding (Pegalajar-Palomino et al., 2021; UNESCO, 2015).

At the same time, GCED has been widely theorised by scholars and implemented across diverse educational contexts. It is therefore conceptualised through multiple theoretical registers, including decolonial, Indigenous and postmodern perspectives. As a result, the concept itself remains contested within the broader field of global education scholarship. On top of that, UNESCO’s vision of GCED has been critiqued for potentially reproducing modern, Eurocentric and universalising assumptions about progress, citizenship and human development. For example, a meta-review by Pashby et al. (2020) identifies several major orientations within GCED scholarship, including neoliberal, liberal and critical approaches. In neoliberal orientations, GCED is framed primarily through the lens of economic competitiveness and global workforce preparation, while liberal approaches emphasise humanist values such as intercultural understanding, empathy and cooperation (Pashby et al., 2020). Although these orientations appear distinct, they frequently intersect within what the authors describe as a shared ‘modern or colonial imaginary’ (Pashby et al., 2020, p. 146), which tends to prioritise Western epistemologies and individualistic modes of existence. Similarly, Andreotti (2006) argues that GCED can sometimes function as a ‘new civilising mission’ in which well-intentioned individuals from the Global North attempt to ‘help’ or ‘educate’ others without critically examining the structural causes of global inequality. By contrast, critical orientations to GCED emphasise social justice, the interrogation of systemic inequalities and the transformation of global power relations. These perspectives foreground the historical roots of global inequities, including colonial exploitation, geopolitical hierarchies and enduring asymmetries of power, drawing on insights from decolonial and postcolonial scholarship (Andreotti, 2006; Pashby et al., 2020).

In the context of embedding GCED within teacher education and practices, a growing body of scholarship highlights the importance of promoting GCED practices among teachers, particularly global-mindedness, and calls for rethinking today’s pedagogies (De Arriba Rivas and Ibáñez Ruiz del Portal, 2023; Estellés and Fischman, 2021; Yemini et al., 2019). Witt (2023) conceptualises GCED as a framework that both ‘explains the current challenges and provides potential cures’ (p. 300) by encouraging individuals to think and act beyond national boundaries. Similarly, both Cushner (2007) and Howard (2003) underscore the growing importance of cross-cultural experiences for teachers, arguing that they are essential for effective teaching in multicultural classrooms and for fostering meaningful collaboration with individuals from diverse backgrounds.

UNESCO (2022) further emphasises that teacher educators worldwide must have access to adequate resources and professional support to deepen their understanding of GCED and to integrate its principles into instructional practice. Supporting this claim, Blackmore (2016), Estellés and Fischman (2021), O’Meara et al. (2018) and Witt (2023) argue that global citizenship and civic education are critical in preparing teachers to address issues of injustice, social crises and global instability while equipping future generations with the skills needed for peaceful and sustainable coexistence. Carroll (2021) and Pegalajar-Palomino et al. (2021) similarly call for urgent integration of GCED within teacher education programmes.

Despite widespread recognition of the importance of GCED, research indicates persistent challenges in its practical implementation. UNESCO and Education International (2021) report that more than 40 per cent of teachers worldwide lack the resources and confidence to teach GCED effectively. Another body of research further suggests that many teachers experience limited confidence and pedagogical competence related to the framework, resulting in a gap between its intended goals and actual classroom practices (Engel and Siczek, 2018; Estellés and Fischman, 2021; Pegalajar-Palomino et al., 2021). Notably, evidence from specialised UNESCO-affiliated schools indicates that even when official curricula intentionally incorporate transformative elements, such as global ethics, teachers may still demonstrate limited understanding of the associated competencies (Kasa et al., 2022).

Critical pedagogy

Within this transformative, globally orientated educational paradigm, critical pedagogy provides a core framework for translating the goal of GCED into concrete pedagogical practices. As such, a number of student-centred and constructivist approaches have emerged to foster holistic learning environments and support pedagogical transformation. Central to these approaches is the positioning of learners as active participants in knowledge construction and of teachers as facilitators who challenge assumptions through critical thinking, promote dialogue and cultivate reflection in practice in class (Blackmore, 2016). Inquiry-based learning exemplifies this orientation by encouraging students to engage in questioning, investigation and experiential learning through fieldwork and other kinds of practitioner work, thereby strengthening their critical thinking skills (Caswell and LaBrie, 2017; Gu et al., 2015; Qargha and Dyl, 2024). Rather than emphasising memorisation or passive knowledge reception, inquiry-driven instruction allows learners to build understanding through exploration and reflection, and teachers play a key role in guiding such inquiry (Farrow et al., 2024).

Aligned with this constructivist foundation, project-based learning extends critical pedagogy by infusing learning within authentic, problem-orientated contexts that prioritise collaboration and iterative processes of feedback and revision (Farrow et al., 2024; Grossman et al., 2019). By integrating real-world challenges and interdisciplinary perspectives into curricular design, project-based approaches enhance student engagement and foster the development of future-orientated competencies such as critical and creative thinking, problem-solving and communication skills (Ma and Yang, 2021; Zhang and Ma, 2023). Such a collaborative nature of project-based learning holds considerable value in teacher education, as it offers teacher candidates opportunities to develop professional identities and pedagogical skills through sustained interaction and shared inquiry with peers and students (Tsybulsky and Muchnik-Rozanov, 2019).

The alternative central approach in critical pedagogy is culturally responsive teaching that recognises students’ diverse identities, experiences and ways of knowing. Culturally responsive pedagogy locates learning within students’ cultural contexts and leverages these contexts as assets for engagement and academic success (Ladson-Billings, 1994; Villegas and Lucas, 2007). By acknowledging students’ lived experiences and fostering inclusive classroom environments, this approach aligns with critical pedagogy’s commitment to equity, empowerment and social transformation. Teachers working within this framework aim to develop cultural competence, maintain high expectations for all learners and view themselves as both facilitators and co-learners in the educational process (Howard, 2003).

Complementing the instructional approaches, restorative justice education advances critical pedagogy by foregrounding relationality, equity and democratic participation within educational settings. Restorative practices prioritise relationship building, dialogue and shared responsibility by positioning teachers and students as equals in addressing harm, resolving conflict and cultivating inclusive learning communities (Gregory and Evans, 2020; Hopkins, 2012; Pointer and McGoey, 2019). By emphasising collaborative and equitable learning, restorative justice education reflects the Freirean concepts of problem-posing education and dialogic engagement, strengthening the ethical and relational dimensions of critical pedagogy (Sweeney, 2022).

GCED and teacher education worldwide

Higher education institutions across the world have adopted various strategies to incorporate GCED frameworks into teacher training (Cushner, 2007; Klein and Wikan, 2019; Oxfam, n.d.). For example, in South Korea, the Asia-Pacific Centre of Education for International Understanding (APCEIU) promotes GCED as a core institutional mission, assisting universities and teachers in general with professional development across the country. Thus, in-service teachers are encouraged to complete 60 hours of annual professional development focused on themes such as human rights, cultural diversity and peace education (UNESCO, 2017). In Australia, universities have prioritised the internationalisation of teacher education curricula by introducing courses aligned with GCED principles. For example, pre-service teachers may enrol in modules such as ‘service learning for sustainable futures’, supported by national policy frameworks and professional standards that position teachers as culturally literate and globally engaged professionals (Halbert, 2019).

Attention and efforts to embed GCED are also evident across the Global South. In China, the Beijing Institute for Education has incorporated Education for International Understanding (EIU) – identified by APCEIU as a key pillar of GCED – into teacher-training programmes (Goh and Deutschman, 2020). As a specialised institution for the professional development of primary and secondary school teachers in Beijing since 1990, the Institute developed a compulsory theoretical course to provide educators with a systematic understanding of the historical development, conceptual foundations and contemporary relevance of EIU (Goh and Deutschman, 2020). In Latin America, conceptualisations of global citizenship are often articulated in relation to nation-building processes (González-Valencia et al., 2020). In Colombia, teacher education programmes incorporate categories associated with GCED, such as citizenship, democracy, politics, geopolitics and globalisation, within both disciplinary courses (for example The Constitution, Citizenship Education) and interdisciplinary offerings addressing contemporary global issues (González-Valencia et al., 2020). In Brazil, master’s and doctoral programmes in teacher education, including those at the Catholic University of Brazil, engage actively with GCED-related themes, particularly through environmental education. These programmes link environmental sustainability, the consequences of human activity and quality of life to the cultivation of collective responsibility and civic consciousness. Thus, teacher candidates examine issues such as globalisation, minority rights and democratisation, thereby situating professional formation within broader global and socio-political dynamics.

Finally, in the United States, GCED is disseminated in teacher education programmes through a variety of professional development initiatives. Pre-service teacher programmes integrate global perspectives in coursework, emphasising social justice, reflective practice, multicultural education and experiential learning. Typically, teacher candidates are offered opportunities for study abroad programmes, international teaching practicums and global education certificates, which are included in undergraduate and graduate curricula (Engel et al., 2016; Nganga and Kambutu, 2015; Reimers et al., 2016). Course-based interventions, both compulsory and elective, facilitate and promote global and multicultural competencies by engaging teacher candidates in critical examinations of diversity, global issues and the socio-political dimensions of schooling (Cruz and Viera, 2022). At the in-service level, GCED is implemented through professional development initiatives led by universities, national projects and international organisations, such as the International Baccalaureate, which provide training, curricular frameworks and workshops focused on global-mindedness and global issues (Christoff, 2022; Reimers et al., 2016; Saperstein, 2020). Faculty-led initiatives and professional networks, including interdisciplinary learning communities and national sustainability education partnerships, further support the integration of global citizenship and social justice across teachers’ career trajectories, although implementation remains uneven and is often dependent on institutional capacity (Pegalajar-Palomino et al., 2021; UNESCO, 2017).

Cognitive: critical thinking

Critical thinking is a core part of the cognitive dimension of GCED, defined by UNESCO (2015) as the ability to comprehend global and local issues and their interdependencies. While definitions of critical thinking vary across scholarships, a classical perspective describes it as comprising an individual’s cognitive skills – interpreting, analysing, evaluating, drawing conclusions and making corrections based on those conclusions – and their dispositions, which include open-mindedness, analytical thinking, systematic approaches, trust in sound reasoning and a commitment to the pursuit of truth (Facione, 1990).

From a critical pedagogy perspective, critical thinking, conceptualised by Freire (1970) as conscientisation, involves recognising and questioning underlying assumptions and power relations that shape social realities. Scholars further emphasise that critical thinking entails both cognitive skills and dispositions, including reflection and analytical reasoning, which are developed through dialogical and inquiry-based teaching practices (Brookfield, 2012; Duran and Dökme, 2016; Facione, 1990; Indrašienė et al., 2022; Leicester, 2010; Qargha and Dyl, 2024).

Socio-emotional: reflective dialogue

The socio-emotional dimension of GCED foregrounds learners’ sense of belonging, empathy and solidarity within a shared humanity (UNESCO, 2015). This dimension is operationalised through reflective dialogue – a central component of Freirean pedagogy that positions it as a means of collective reflection and mutual humanisation (Freire, 1970). Through pedagogical approaches, such as experiential learning and community engagement, reflective dialogue supports the development of trust, emotional awareness and respect for diverse perspectives within learning environments (International Commission on the Futures of Education, 2021).

At the same time, the socio-emotional dimension of GCED, particularly in its critical and transformative forms, encompasses more than empathy and a sense of shared humanity. Confronting issues of systemic inequality, colonial legacies and global injustice can cause difficult affective responses to surface, including discomfort, vulnerability and ethical tension, for both educators and learners. The emotional complexity of this dimension is essential for understanding what transformative engagement with GCED actually requires, and for distinguishing it from more surface-level, competency-based approaches to global learning.

Behavioural: action

The behavioural dimension of GCED emphasises responsible and ethical action at local, national and global levels (UNESCO, 2015). This dimension corresponds with the Freirean concept of praxis, understood as the integration of reflection and action aimed at social transformation (Freire, 1970). Drawing on Banks (2017), civic action is conceptualised as both participatory (working within existing structures) and transformative (challenging inequitable systems to advance human rights and social justice).

Institutional type – x1

We purposefully selected teacher education programmes from both private (n = 7) and public (n = 8) higher education institutions to examine whether institutional type correlates with the adoption and institutionalisation of transformative global education initiatives.

Institutional support structures – x2

We operationalised ISS through four subfactors: strategic plans (SP), established international collaborations (EIC), faculty professional development (FPD) and internationalisation of curriculum (IoC).

1. Strategic plans. We analysed each institution’s strategic plan to determine whether globalisation and/or internationalisation formed part of their mission and vision. We systematically searched for keywords such as ‘international’, ‘global’, ‘intercultural’, ‘multicultural’, ‘world’, ‘worldwide’, ‘citizenship’, ‘internationalise’ and ‘globalise’. We coded institutions as 1 if their strategic plans referenced these concepts and 0 if they did not.

2. Established international collaborations. We examined interview data and institutional documents to identify opportunities for international exchange, study abroad programmes, global partnerships and international research collaborations available to teacher education faculty and students. We coded institutions as 1 if they demonstrated active and structured international collaborations and 0 if such opportunities were absent or minimal.

3. Faculty professional development. We assessed institutional support for faculty professional development by examining administrative initiatives, workshops and training programmes related to internationalisation, GCED and digital citizenship. Drawing on interview data and institutional reports, we coded institutions as 1 when faculty received support and adequate resources to engage in transformative and globally orientated pedagogical practices and 0 when such support was not evident.

4. Internationalisation of curriculum. To assess curriculum internationalisation, we systematically reviewed programme coursework, course catalogues, syllabi and extracurricular initiatives. We focused on identifying elements aligned with global education pillars, including intercultural and multicultural education, curriculum decolonisation, global learning, bilingual pedagogy, the integration of international or non-Western literature and opportunities for international internships for students. We coded institutions as 1 if curricula demonstrated clear internationalisation and 0 otherwise.

International student representation – x3

We used the percentage of international students enrolled at each institution across the 2021, 2022 and 2023 academic years. We obtained this data from official demographic reports published by university offices for international students or designated school officials. We used ISR as an indicator of institutional diversity and global engagement.

Commitment to transformative education – y

To assess each programme’s commitment to transformative global education, we evaluated our 15 institutions based on the balance between domestic civic education and global perspectives. We developed the following criteria grounded in the study’s conceptual framework (see Figure 1): to meet the criteria for CTE, a teacher education programme had to satisfy at least half of the identified indicators within each of the three conceptual dimensions:

• Cognitive: at least three indicators

• Socio-emotional: at least three indicators

• Behavioural: at least two indicators (see Table 2).

In addition, to demonstrate global orientation, programmes had to incorporate at least half of the identified global learning components, which is at least three of the following five, within their curricula: global learning and global-mindedness; education for sustainable development; intercultural communication and competence; development of internationalised curriculum and international internships (see Table 2). The criteria are based on data from both interviews and document analysis to ensure that teacher education programmes reflect a comprehensive, balanced approach that integrates local civic responsibilities with global educational objectives. Collectively, they capture the cognitive, socio-emotional and behavioural dimensions of the conceptual framework and support the development of teacher candidates as globally minded educators grounded in national civic contexts.

To examine associations between institutional conditions (factors) and CTE, we constructed an institution-level dataset using the coded variables presented in Table 3. Using these data, we calculated bivariate correlation coefficients in Microsoft Excel to explore the direction and strength of relationships between each institutional factor and CTE (see Figure 2). Given the small sample size (n = 15), these correlations are interpreted as descriptive and exploratory, rather than inferential. Accordingly, the correlation analysis is done to identify potential patterns of association and to complement the qualitative findings by highlighting institutional conditions that appear to enable or constrain the integration of transformative global education within teacher education programmes.

Figure 2

Between institutional factors and CTE. The strength of associations between selected institutional factors and commitment to transformative global education is expressed as correlation coefficients. Internationalisation of curriculum shows the strongest positive association (0.74), followed by faculty professional development (0.66) and strategic plans (0.49). More moderate associations are observed for established international collaborations (0.36) and institutional type (0.34). International student representation shows a weak negative association (–0.13), suggesting no meaningful relationship with CTE in the sample. 

Cognitive dimension

Across all studied institutions, the cognitive dimension of transformative pedagogy is robustly institutionalised through compulsory coursework that emphasises inquiry-based, project-based and student-centred pedagogy (100 per cent; see Table 2 and Table 4). These pedagogical approaches are included in foundational courses on pedagogy, instructional methods and curriculum design, typically introduced early in teacher education programmes. Faculty described these courses as central to fostering critical thinking, dialogue, collaboration and reflective practice among pre-service and in-service teachers.

In contrast, globally orientated cognitive components appear far less consistently embedded. While several programmes offer coursework in multicultural, international or comparative education, these courses are often positioned as electives rather than requirements. Only 26.7 per cent of programmes require coursework explicitly focused on global learning to foster global-mindedness, despite broader elective availability. Similarly, digital citizenship is a compulsory component in just 33.3 per cent of programmes, typically framed through educational technology or instructional design courses. Content related to ESD and SDGs appears in compulsory curricula at only one institution (6.7 per cent), indicating minimal formal integration of sustainability within cognitive learning objectives. Interestingly, media and information literacy, which is typically considered part of digital citizenship, does not appear as a compulsory curricular component in any of the programmes analysed.

Socio-emotional dimension

The socio-emotional dimension of transformative education is widely institutionalised within domestically framed equity and justice agendas. All 15 programmes (100 per cent) require coursework addressing social justice and restorative justice, culturally responsive pedagogy and DEI. These themes are embedded across multiple courses throughout the programme and are central to preparing teacher candidates to work with diverse student populations in US educational contexts. Faculty emphasised reflective dialogue, self-examination and experiential learning as core strategies for cultivating empathy, equity-orientated dispositions and democratic values.

Global socio-emotional competencies receive limited compulsory attention: in most programmes, these topics are optional rather than compulsory for teacher candidates. The results show that courses on intercultural communication and global competence as a required curriculum component are embedded in 53.3 per cent of the schools, while peacebuilding and reconciliation emerge as a compulsory curricular focus in only one institution (6.7 per cent).

Behavioural dimension

At the behavioural level, all programmes require fieldwork and practicum experiences (100 per cent), ensuring that teacher candidates apply pedagogical knowledge in real-world educational settings. While the structure, duration and expectations of field placements vary, all teacher candidates engage in supervised teaching in local schools, with the opportunity to translate theory into practice within domestic educational systems. Faculty highlighted that all teacher candidates are required to take actual teaching duties during their placement at public schools in their communities, typically through a semester-long or year-long practicum.

Opportunities for globally orientated behavioural engagement remain limited across schools. Only 20 per cent of programmes require international internships as a compulsory component of teacher preparation, despite the broader availability of study abroad or exchange opportunities at university overall. Faculty from such programmes with the required international internships emphasised the transformative impact of international teaching placements on candidates’ pedagogical perspectives, intercultural awareness and professional identities:

International internship is one of the hallmarks of our teacher education programme. In the last semester, teacher students have an international teaching practice, where they typically go to schools and places in South America. They have been to Cuba, Guatemala, Colombia and other places. And so, they spend time in schools, understanding local cultures in those international spaces. And when they return, of course, there are so many international activities that we engage in within the School of Education. (Faculty interview, DC3, September 2024)

Community service and service learning are compulsory in 60 per cent of programmes, typically requiring teacher candidates to engage with local communities through volunteer work in schools, libraries, museums or social service organisations. These experiences prioritise civic engagement and social responsibility, providing teacher students with hands-on community engagement experience in diverse communities, including marginalised and underrepresented groups.

Coursework on curriculum development and pedagogical instructions forms a core foundation in teacher education programmes, preparing teacher candidates to design lesson plans, develop learning materials and implement diverse instructional strategies to meet the needs of their students. The results indicate that while faculty widely acknowledge the importance of internationalising curricula and incorporating global perspectives, only 40 per cent of programmes require coursework focused on developing internationalised lesson design. The remaining teacher education programmes maintain a predominantly US-centric approach to civic education, with the orientation towards preparing teachers for national education systems.

Schools are based in the US, and we primarily prepare teachers to work within the American educational system, with limited emphasis on internationalisation or global education. (Faculty interview, VA2, October 2024)

In response to the second research question, the analysis shows some substantial variation in institutional commitment to transformative global education. Using criteria grounded in our conceptual framework (see Figure 1), only four institutions (DC2, DC4, VA1 and VA4) satisfied the required commitment indicators (see Table 2), accounting for 26.67 per cent of the sample. To examine factors associated with this variation, we analysed the relationship between three independent variables and one dependent variable.

Institutional type

The results show a modest association between institutional type and CTE. Of the four institutions meeting the criteria, three are private and one is public. Within the sample, 42.86 per cent of private institutions (three of seven) satisfied the criteria, compared with 12.5 per cent of public institutions (one of eight). Although such a distribution suggests that private institutions are more likely to be committed to transformative global education, the small sample size limits the strength of this inference. Institutional type alone, therefore, cannot be interpreted as a decisive factor shaping adoption and further research with a larger and more diverse sample is required to assess whether public–private distinctions systematically influence the implementation of transformative global education practices.

Institutional support structures

Institutional support structures appear to be the strongest correlate of CTE. This composite factor comprises four sub-elements – internationalisation of curriculum, faculty professional development, strategic plans and established international collaborations – each of which was examined in relation to CTE (see Figure 2).

Among these sub-elements, internationalisation of curriculum demonstrates the strongest association with CTE (0.74). All four institutions meeting the CTE criteria prioritise internationalised design of curriculum within their teacher education programmes, which indicates that embedding global perspectives directly into compulsory coursework is a central enabling condition for transformative pedagogy.

Faculty professional development also shows a strong positive association with CTE (0.66). Institutions that provide structured support for faculty engagement in global learning, such as through workshops, funding for international collaboration or professional learning communities, are more likely to demonstrate sustained implementation of transformative global education practices.

At the administration level, strategic plans show a moderate correlation with CTE (0.49). At the same time, all institutions meeting the criteria articulate global or international commitments in their official strategic documents, suggesting that administrative prioritisation of global engagement provides an enabling (however, not sufficient) condition for programme-level transformation.

Finally, established international collaborations that include study abroad programmes, faculty exchange initiatives and international research partnerships show a weaker but positive association with CTE (0.36). While these collaborations contribute to a global institutional environment, their presence alone does not guarantee the integration of transformative global pedagogy within teacher education programmes.

International student representation

International student representation demonstrates no meaningful association with CTE (–0.13). This finding shows that a higher proportion of international students on campus does not, in itself, translate into stronger institutional CTE within teacher preparation programmes. In several cases, institutions with relatively high international student enrolment showed limited integration of global perspectives in teacher education curricula, indicating a disconnect between campus-level diversity and programme-level pedagogical transformation.

Resistance to internationalising teacher education

Findings from faculty interviews reveal several sources of challenges and resistance to the internationalisation of teacher education, including curricular constraints, institutional and policy structures and broader political dynamics. Together, these factors limit the extent to which global perspectives and GCED are embedded within teacher preparation programmes, despite widespread support for internationalisation.