Special issue: Reimagining teacher education for the future – global perspectives at the intersection of change, hope and crisis
Introduction
In an increasingly interconnected and interdependent world, the ability of young people to engage with global issues, appreciate diverse perspectives and act for collective well-being has become a central concern in education policy and practice. The concept of global competence – broadly defined as the capacity to examine global and intercultural issues, understand others’ perspectives, communicate across cultures and take action for sustainable development – has gained prominence as a key twenty-first-century skill. This shift is reflected in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s (OECD, 2018) inclusion of global competence in the 2018 Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), marking a significant institutional endorsement of global citizenship education (GCED).
However, the PISA framework has not been without controversy. Scholars have raised concerns about its conceptual clarity, cultural bias and methodological limitations (Cobb and Couch, 2022; Engel et al., 2019). Critics argue that the framework risks privileging students from affluent, Western backgrounds while marginalising those whose experiences and values may not align with the assessment’s assumptions (Auld and Morris, 2019). Others have pointed to the tension between the OECD’s technocratic approach and more transformative, justice-oriented visions of global education promoted by organisations such as the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) (Vaccari and Gardinier, 2019). These debates underscore the need for critical, context-sensitive research on how global competence is understood, taught and assessed in diverse educational settings.
This article addresses the lack of Flemish participation in the global competence module of PISA 2018 by investigating the global competence of Flemish secondary school students using an adapted version of the PISA assessment. Flanders is the Dutch-speaking region of Belgium and it has its own Ministry of Education. By examining how students perform on key dimensions of global competence and how their scores relate to demographic, educational and contextual factors, the research fills a critical regional data gap. At the same time, it contributes to broader debates about the validity, inclusivity and educational value of global competence assessments. Importantly, the study does not adopt the PISA framework uncritically. Instead, it engages with it as a contested tool, reflecting concerns about its technocratic and depoliticised orientation. Existing critiques highlight how PISA’s liberal framing of global education often overlooks structural inequalities, cultural diversity and the political dimensions of global citizenship. In this context, the Flemish case presents a valuable opportunity to examine how global competence is influenced by local educational structures, socio-economic disparities and school-level dynamics. By situating the study within these debates, the research aimed to advance a more nuanced and context-sensitive understanding of global competence.
Background
Global competence and global citizenship
Although often used interchangeably, ‘global competence’ and ‘global citizenship’ represent distinct yet interconnected educational constructs. Global competence, as defined by the OECD (2018), refers to an individual’s capacity to analyse global and intercultural issues, understand diverse perspectives, communicate effectively across cultures and take action for collective well-being. It emphasises measurable skills and dispositions that can be assessed through standardised instruments. In contrast, global citizenship encompasses a broader normative vision rooted in values such as social justice, human rights and democratic participation (Reysen and Katzarska-Miller, 2013). It is less about individual aptitude and more about ethical orientation and civic responsibility within a global context. This study primarily engages with global competence, as in the PISA assessment, acknowledging that its meaningful development is inseparable from the broader aims of GCED. The two concepts are thus best understood as complementary: global competence provides the tools for navigating complexity, while global citizenship offers the ethical compass for engaging with it.
Global citizenship has emerged as a central theme in educational discourse, often framed as a response to the interconnected challenges of globalisation, sustainability and social justice. Definitions of global citizenship vary widely, reflecting different ideological orientations and educational priorities. Scholars such as Oxley and Morris (2013) have emphasised the ideological diversity within GCED, distinguishing between cosmopolitan and advocacy-oriented models that reflect competing visions of global engagement. Similarly, Andreotti and Souza (2012) and Andreotti (2006) have critiqued mainstream GCED for promoting a ‘soft’ global citizenship that avoids confronting power and inequality, advocating instead for a ‘critical’ approach that foregrounds social justice and decolonial perspectives. In the realm of assessment, Griffith et al. (2016) have questioned the validity of standardised tools like PISA, arguing that intercultural competence, as part of global competence, cannot be fully captured through decontextualised metrics. This article engages with these debates by examining how global competence is shaped by structural factors within Flemish education and by critically reflecting on the limitations of using adapted PISA instruments. By adapting and critically interrogating the PISA framework within the Flemish educational context, this study demonstrates how structural inequalities and school-level dynamics shape global competence. It contributes to the development of more inclusive and context-sensitive approaches to GCED by highlighting the need for assessment tools that are both pedagogically responsive and attuned to local educational realities.
The PISA framework: critiques
Engel et al. (2019) argue that the PISA framework for global competence reflects a narrow, technocratic vision that prioritises comparability over contextual sensitivity. They question whether the assessment truly captures the complexity of global competence or merely reinforces dominant Western norms. Similarly, Auld and Morris (2019) argue that the OECD’s approach risks creating a global elite by privileging students who already possess the cultural capital necessary to succeed in internationalised educational settings. In this view, global competence becomes less about fostering inclusive global citizenship and more about reproducing existing inequalities.
Cobb and Couch (2022) further critique the PISA framework for its limited engagement with inclusion. Their analysis reveals that while the OECD rhetorically embraces diversity and equity, the assessment design fails to account for the lived experiences of marginalised students. The reliance on self-report data and abstract scenarios may obscure the structural barriers that shape students’ opportunities to develop global competence.
Vaccari and Gardinier (2019) offer a comparative lens, contrasting the OECD’s approach with that of UNESCO. While the OECD emphasises measurement and benchmarking, UNESCO promotes a holistic and transformative vision of global education that is deeply rooted in principles of human rights, democratic participation and social justice. This approach emphasises the cultivation of critical consciousness, intercultural understanding and civic agency, encouraging learners to engage with global challenges not merely as observers but as active participants in shaping a more equitable world. It values diversity, reflexivity and ethical engagement, and it seeks to empower students to question dominant narratives and address systemic inequalities. In contrast, the OECD’s framework – particularly as operationalised through PISA – prioritises standardisation, comparability and measurable outcomes. While it has helped legitimise global competence as a policy concern, its technocratic orientation often reduces complex educational goals to quantifiable indicators. This risks sidelining the relational, contextual and political dimensions of global education, especially in settings marked by cultural diversity and structural disadvantage. These tensions are not merely theoretical – they shape how GCED is implemented in classrooms, how teachers are trained and how students experience their roles in an interconnected world. By engaging with these tensions, this article underscores the importance of aligning assessment and pedagogy with the lived realities of learners. It calls for educational approaches that move beyond compliance with global standards towards practices that are inclusive, dialogic and responsive to the socio-political contexts in which students learn.
The Flemish case: a lens on contextualised global competence education
In Flanders, GCED is formally embedded in the secondary school curriculum, with an emphasis on democratic values, sustainability and intercultural understanding. This was done through the 2019 reform of attainment targets, which introduced 16 key competencies for education, including citizenship as a transversal domain with a global dimension. Inspired by UNESCO’s vision of GCED, these targets shifted from being obligations of effort to obligations of result, signalling a stronger institutional commitment to measurable outcomes in civic and global learning. Major educational networks in Flanders, such as GO! (Gemeenschapsonderwijs) and Catholic Education Flanders, have also emphasised GCED in their pedagogical frameworks, promoting active and inspiring citizenship, respectively.
As in many national contexts, however, the implementation of GCED often remains uneven and implicitly nationalistic. Curricular documents may reference global issues, but classroom practices frequently prioritise national identity and civic norms (Osler, 2011). Moreover, the availability of teaching materials and project-based learning opportunities varies widely, raising concerns about equity and consistency. The integration of GCED into teacher education also remains uneven. While initiatives like Enabel’s BeGlobal (n.d.) programme support innovation in teaching practices and policy dialogue around GCED, there is limited systematic incorporation of global competence training in pre-service teacher education programmes. This fragmented implementation landscape underscores the importance of critically examining how GCED is enacted in schools and how teacher preparedness may influence students’ global learning experiences.
The Flemish case exemplifies the challenges of translating global competence frameworks into practical educational applications. While students may learn multiple languages and encounter cultural diversity in school, these experiences do not automatically translate into higher scores on global competence assessments. As this article demonstrates, structural factors, such as school climate, teacher attitudes and socio-economic background, play a crucial role in shaping students’ global outlook.
The study
Research questions
The central research question of this article is: How does the global competence of Flemish secondary school students, as measured by the PISA tool to assess global competence, compare to that of students in other countries?
The article also aims to answer a second research question: To what extent does the adapted PISA framework for assessing global competence adequately capture the contextual, structural and experiential dimensions of global competence among Flemish secondary school students? This question invites a critical examination of the validity, inclusivity and cultural responsiveness of the PISA tool when applied in a specific regional context. It also aligns with the article’s aim to contribute to the development of more nuanced and pedagogically grounded approaches to GCED.
Methodology
This research, conducted in 2021–2, employed an adapted version of the OECD’s PISA 2018 global competence framework, specifically its cognitive test and student questionnaire. As Flanders did not participate in the global competence module of PISA, given it prioritised the core domains (reading, maths, science) and that the global competence module was seen as overlapping with the International Civic and Citizenship Education Study (ICCS) (written parliamentary question and answer, Flemish Parliament, 19 December 2019), for this research, the instruments were selected and modified to suit the Flemish educational context. The cognitive component was reduced to a single item – ‘A single story’ – chosen for its relevance to intercultural understanding and its alignment with curricular goals in Flemish secondary education. This item was deemed appropriate for assessing students’ ability to analyse and respond to complex intercultural situations using critical thinking and background knowledge.
The student questionnaire was abbreviated to focus on key dimensions of global competence: knowledge, attitudes, skills and values. Items were selected based on their conceptual relevance and their representation in prior GCED research. The adaptation process involved a forward/backward translation protocol to ensure linguistic and cultural equivalence. Initial translations from English to Dutch were performed by bilingual education experts, followed by independent translation back to English. Discrepancies were resolved through consensus and pilot testing with a small group of students (n = 10) helped refine the clarity and intelligibility of the items.
Data were collected from five secondary schools affiliated with Catholic Education Flanders, resulting in 223 complete student responses. While the sample was drawn from a randomised subset of schools, the final group reflects a self-selecting population and may not be fully representative of the broader Flemish student body. Descriptive statistics were used to summarise student performance across questionnaire items and the cognitive test. To explore group differences, one-way ANOVA (analysis of variance) and t-tests were conducted across demographic variables, including gender, educational track, socio-economic status, migration background and school diversity. Where significant differences emerged, post-hoc pairwise t-tests were applied. These statistical methods were chosen for their suitability in identifying patterns within small sample sizes and for their ability to highlight disparities across student groups.
While this research critically engages with the conceptual and methodological limitations of the PISA global competence framework, it nonetheless employs an adapted version of the instrument. The decision to use PISA is grounded in a recognition of its limitations – particularly its cultural bias, technocratic design and limited inclusivity. These concerns are especially relevant in contexts like Flanders, where diverse student populations and complex school-level dynamics challenge the assumptions embedded in standardised assessments.
Despite these critiques, the use of PISA was guided by pragmatic considerations. At the time of the research, no alternative, widely recognised instruments for measuring global competence were available in the Flemish context. The PISA framework, though imperfect, offered a structured and internationally benchmarked tool that could generate comparative insights and help identify systemic disparities across student groups. Its use allowed the study to engage with existing policy discourse while providing a basis for empirical analysis.
Importantly, the study does not adopt the PISA framework uncritically. Rather, it uses the adapted instrument as a strategic entry point to interrogate the limitations of standardised global competence assessments. By situating the tool within the Flemish educational context and examining how structural inequalities and school-level factors influence student outcomes, the research contributes to the refinement of global competence measurement.
Participants
An invitation to participate in the research was sent to 108 Flemish schools selected from a list provided by Catholic Education Flanders, which included a total of 1,097 schools. The selection was done at random by taking approximately every 10th school on the list. After an email and a reminder email asking schools to participate, five schools distributed the instruments to their students. An explanation for the low number of schools that participated may lie in the fact that the email was not sent out until the second semester and because of the circumstances imposed by the Covid-19 pandemic. A total of 380 students completed the questionnaire and the cognitive test. There were 223 complete responses, which were used as data for this article.
The majority of respondents were female (64.6 per cent; n = 144). Seventy-five boys participated in the research (33.6 per cent). Four of the respondents described themselves as X (1.8 per cent). The majority of the students were 15 years old (29.6 per cent; n = 66). Other students were one year younger or older than the mean age. The majority of the surveyed students attended ASO (algemeen secundair onderwijs; general secondary education) (77.6 per cent; n = 173), 13.5 per cent of the surveyed students attended BSO (beroepssecundair onderwijs; vocational secondary education) (n = 30), 4.9 per cent attended KSO (kunstsecundair onderwijs; artistic secondary education) (n = 11) and 4 per cent attended TSO (technisch secundair onderwijs; technical secondary education) (n = 9).
Regarding the students’ nationality, 87.9 per cent of the respondents had Belgian nationality (n = 196). Eighteen reported having dual nationality (8.1 per cent). The other countries of birth reported were the Netherlands (n = 2; 0.9 per cent) and Belarus, Congo, Gabon, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Russia and Rwanda (n = 1; 0.4 per cent). One-fourth of the students surveyed had a migration background (24.2 per cent; n = 54). A total of 33.6 per cent of the pupils were typified as having a high socio-economic background.
To the question ‘How many languages (including the language(s) you speak at home) do you speak well enough to be able to talk to others in that language?’, the majority of the students answered three (45.3 per cent, n = 101). A total of 34.1 per cent of students (n = 76) indicated that they spoke two languages well enough, while 10.3 per cent of the students reported that they only mastered one language well enough (n = 23) and 9.4 per cent of the students (n = 21) spoke four or more languages. Half of the surveyed students learn three foreign languages at school (50.2 per cent, n = 112). A large part of the population learns two languages at school, and some learn four.
Findings
The findings are presented under two headings. To facilitate interpretation and maintain alignment with the study’s first research question, the results under the first heading, ‘Flemish students’ global competence’, are organised according to the four key dimensions of global competence identified in the PISA framework: knowledge, attitudes, skills and values. Within each dimension, findings are presented descriptively, followed by comparative analyses across demographic variables, including gender, educational track, socio-economic status, migration background and school diversity. A final section examines students’ perceptions of their school environment and its impact on global competence development. This thematic structure aims to highlight both individual and systemic factors that influence student outcomes, providing a coherent narrative that connects empirical findings to broader educational and policy debates. The findings under the second heading, ‘A critique of the PISA instrument’, highlight the need for more holistic and participatory assessment models.
Flemish students’ global competence
Descriptive results
Global score
Based on the students’ questionnaire responses, a score for global competence was calculated. On average, the surveyed student group scored 65.7 per cent. The total score includes scores on the various components of global competence, as distinguished in the questionnaire.
Students who indicated being in a school with a student body composed mostly of Flemish students scored an average of 67.2 per cent on global competence. Students who indicated they attended a school with a mixed student body scored an average of 62.7 per cent on global competence. Students who indicated being in a school with a student body of mostly students from immigrant backgrounds scored an average of 57.5 per cent on global competence.
Students in vocational education (n = 30) scored the lowest on global competence, at 50.5 per cent, while students from artistic secondary education (n = 11) scored the highest, at 68.8 per cent. Female students scored higher than male students (67.3 per cent versus 62 per cent). Students in the final year obtained a higher score than younger students (69.1 per cent versus 61.4 per cent). Students with a migrant background obtained an average score of 70.3 per cent. Students with a high socio-economic background score obtained a higher grade than students with a lower socio-economic background score (67.7 per cent versus 64.2 per cent).
Global knowledge
The score on global knowledge is calculated from students’ responses to statements that gauge their self-efficacy regarding global issues and their awareness of global issues. The average self-efficacy score is 71 per cent. In comparison, the average score of the countries that participated in the PISA survey questionnaire is 74.7 per cent (OECD, 2020). The average score on global awareness is 70.2 per cent. The average in the PISA study is 76.8 per cent.
As regards students’ answers on the cognitive test, the results show that the student group scored an average of 57.5 per cent. PISA countries scored an average of 51 per cent on the full cognitive test, which contained five test items. The school with the highest score attained 68.9 per cent. The school with the lowest average equalled 50 per cent.
Skills
Global skills include awareness of intercultural communication and adaptability. Regarding intercultural awareness, the surveyed group scored an average of 80.7 per cent. The average score in the PISA survey was 86.2 per cent. On adaptability, the students scored an average of 75.1 per cent. The PISA average is 81.6 per cent.
Attitudes and values
Four global attitudes were identified, the first one being interest in other cultures. On average, the surveyed group scored 76.7 per cent for this attitude. The PISA average is 79.3 per cent. The second is respect for other cultures. The average score for this disposition was 87.7 per cent. The PISA average is 89.9 per cent. For the third global attitude, global- mindedness, the surveyed group scored an average of 71.3 per cent. The average in the PISA survey is 69.4 per cent. The fourth component is the attitude towards migrants. For this, students scored an average of 83.3 per cent. The PISA average is 91.5 per cent.
Regarding students’ commitment to and engagement with global actions, the group scored an average of 37.5 per cent. The average percentage in the PISA survey is 65.3 per cent.
Curriculum
On average, students from all four schools indicated that their school sometimes touches upon global issues (72 per cent) or intercultural issues (72 per cent), but not always. These findings align with the PISA 2018 results.
Learning one or more languages at school correlates positively with global competence (r(221) = 0.349, p = 0.000), as does the number of languages a student masters (r(223) = 0.402, p = 0.000). These findings corroborate the PISA 2018 results.
The total number of different intercultural learning activities correlates positively with global competence (r(223) = 0.165, p = 0.014), albeit weakly. These findings confirm the 2018 PISA results.
School
The overall score that students assign to their teachers when asked to what extent they show respect for different cultures equals 64.3 per cent. In other words, about two-thirds of students reported that their teachers have an open and respectful attitude towards diversity. The average for teacher attitudes towards diversity and other cultures in the PISA survey was 74.8 per cent.
Having contact with people from other countries at school correlates positively with global competence (r(223) = 0.349, p < 0.001), as does the total number of actions a student indicates they would be willing to take (r(223) = 0.237, p = 0.017). These findings reflect the PISA 2018 results.
Data analysis
The analysis of Flemish students’ global competence reveals a complex and uneven landscape. While the overall average score of 65.7 per cent places Flemish students near the international mean reported in PISA 2018, this aggregate figure masks significant disparities across demographic, educational and socio-cultural lines.
Gender and educational track disparities
One of the most consistent patterns is the gender gap: female students outperform male students across nearly every dimension of global competence, including knowledge, attitudes and skills (t = 4.55, p < 0.001). This aligns with broader PISA trends but raises questions about how global competence may be framed and taught in ways that resonate more with girls than boys. Similarly, students in general and artistic education score significantly higher than those in vocational education (F(3.200) = 8.378; p < 0.001). The latter group, often composed of students from lower socio-economic backgrounds, appears to be systematically disadvantaged in accessing the kind of learning experiences that foster global awareness and engagement.
These disparities suggest that global competence is not merely a function of individual disposition but is shaped by structural inequalities within the education system. Vocational tracks may offer fewer opportunities for intercultural learning, critical thinking or project-based engagement with global issues. Moreover, the curriculum and pedagogical approaches in these tracks may be less aligned with the competencies assessed by PISA.
Socio-economic and migration backgrounds
Students from higher socio-economic backgrounds tend to score higher on global competence, particularly in areas such as global knowledge and political engagement (t = 3.34, p = 0.0010). This may reflect greater access to cultural capital, including travel, multilingualism and extracurricular opportunities. Interestingly, students with a migration background scored higher on average than their peers, particularly in global-mindedness and intercultural awareness (t = 2.63, p = 0.0093).
However, this finding must be interpreted cautiously, as it may reflect a heightened sensitivity to global and intercultural issues rather than institutional support for their development.
School environment and teacher attitudes
Perhaps the most troubling finding concerns students’ perceptions of their school environment. In one school with a predominantly immigrant student population, students reported significantly lower scores across all dimensions of global competence. They also expressed strong dissatisfaction with their teachers’ attitudes towards diversity, citing perceived bias, low expectations and cultural insensitivity. These perceptions are not merely anecdotal; they correlate with lower scores in global knowledge, political engagement and willingness to take action.
This highlights a critical equity issue: schools serving marginalised populations may not be providing the inclusive and respectful environments necessary for global competence to flourish. Moreover, the data suggest that teacher attitudes – whether real or perceived – can significantly influence students’ engagement with global issues. This highlights the necessity of systemic interventions in teacher training and school culture to ensure that all students, regardless of their background, feel valued and empowered.
Student engagement and political action
The lowest scores were observed in the domain of political engagement and global action, where Flemish students scored well below the PISA average. While this may partly reflect the timing of the study during the Covid-19 pandemic, it also raises questions about the extent to which Flemish education encourages active citizenship – that is, participation in civic and political life through voting, protests, petitions and community organising (Open University, 2025; Westheimer and Kahne, 2004).
The curriculum may emphasise knowledge and tolerance, but it falls short in fostering agency and activism. This is particularly concerning given that the ability to take informed action is a core dimension of global competence.
Assessment validity and student response patterns
The analysis reveals potential limitations in the assessment process itself. Some students appeared to disengage from the questionnaire, providing uniform or careless responses. This may reflect test fatigue, scepticism about the relevance of the questions or a broader disconnect between the assessment format and students’ lived experiences. These issues highlight the need for more context-sensitive and participatory assessment tools that can capture the depth and nuance of students’ global competence. Such tools include student portfolios, which allow learners to document and reflect on their intercultural experiences and civic engagement over time; classroom-based projects, which assess students’ ability to collaboratively address global issues through enquiry and action; and reflective journals, which provide insight into students’ evolving perspectives and ethical reasoning. These approaches are participatory in nature because they position students as co-constructors of meaning, emphasise process over product and value diverse forms of expression and knowledge. Unlike standardised tests, they are better suited to capturing the situated, relational and transformative dimensions of global competence.
A critique of the PISA instrument
The adapted PISA framework used in this study provides a useful starting point for assessing global competence among Flemish secondary school students. However, its limitations become evident when examined through the lens of contextual, structural and experiential factors. While the instrument is standardised for measuring knowledge, attitudes, skills and values related to global competence, its design – rooted in comparability and benchmarking – struggles to accommodate the nuanced realities of Flemish education.
First, the instrument’s reliance on self-reported data and abstract scenarios limits its ability to capture the lived experiences of students, particularly those from marginalised backgrounds. In this study, students from culturally diverse schools and vocational tracks reported lower scores and less favourable perceptions of teacher attitudes towards diversity. These findings suggest that the assessment may not fully reflect students’ actual competencies or the structural barriers they face in developing global awareness. The single cognitive item used – while relevant and thoughtfully selected – also restricts the depth of insight into students’ analytical and problem-solving abilities in intercultural contexts.
Second, the instrument’s conceptual orientation aligns more closely with liberal, individualistic notions of global competence, which may resonate more with students from general and artistic education tracks and higher socio-economic backgrounds. This alignment risks reinforcing existing educational inequalities, as students in vocational education – often from less privileged backgrounds – appear disadvantaged by both curricular exposure and the assessment’s assumptions. The Flemish case thus illustrates how standardised tools can inadvertently reproduce disparities rather than eliminate them.
Ultimately, the study’s findings highlight the significance of school-level dynamics, including teacher attitudes and school climate, in influencing students’ global competence. These factors are largely invisible within the PISA framework, which focuses on individual dispositions rather than institutional contexts. As such, the adapted instrument falls short in capturing the full complexity of global competence as it is experienced and cultivated within Flemish schools and schools around the world.
In summary, while the adapted PISA instrument offers a pragmatic approach to assessing global competence, its limitations in terms of contextual sensitivity, inclusivity and depth underscore the need for more holistic and participatory assessment models. This study contributes to ongoing efforts to refine global competence measurement by demonstrating the importance of aligning assessment tools with local educational realities and by advocating for approaches that foreground equity, cultural responsiveness and student agency.
Discussion
This study set out to assess the global competence of Flemish secondary school students using an adapted version of the PISA 2018 framework. The findings presented in the section ‘Flemish students’ global competence’ provide a nuanced picture: while Flemish students perform near the international average on several dimensions of global competence, notable disparities exist across demographic and educational lines. Girls, students in general education, those in artistic education and those with higher socio-economic status tend to score higher, while students in vocational tracks and those attending more culturally diverse schools often report lower levels of global competence and less favourable perceptions of their teachers’ intercultural attitudes.
The statistical analysis conducted in this study further substantiates the observed disparities in global competence across key demographic groups. Independent samples t-tests revealed significant differences between boys and girls, students with and without a migration background and students from higher versus lower socio-economic backgrounds. Girls scored significantly higher than boys (t = 4.55, p < 0.001), aligning with broader PISA trends and suggesting that the framing of global competence may resonate more with values and dispositions traditionally encouraged among female students, such as empathy and intercultural sensitivity. Similarly, students with a migration background outperformed their peers (t = 2.63, p = 0.0093), a finding that challenges deficit-based assumptions and points to the potential value of lived intercultural experiences in fostering global awareness. The socio-economic divide was also statistically significant (t = 3.34, p = 0.0010), with students from higher socio-economic backgrounds scoring higher on global competence, likely reflecting greater access to cultural capital and global learning opportunities. Interestingly, the finding that students with a migration background outperformed their peers in certain dimensions of global competence (for example, global- mindedness and intercultural awareness) appears to be context-specific rather than a global trend. While this challenges deficit-based assumptions and suggests the potential value of lived intercultural experiences, it diverges from broader patterns observed in the OECD’s PISA 2018 data. According to OECD (2020) analyses, students with an immigrant background – particularly first-generation immigrants – often face structural barriers that negatively affect their performance in both academic and global competence domains. Although second-generation students may perform closer to native peers, the overall trend does not consistently show higher global competence among migrant-background students across countries. The Flemish case, therefore, offers a noteworthy deviation, possibly reflecting specific educational, linguistic or socio-cultural dynamics that merit further investigation. This underscores the importance of localised research in complementing international assessments and in revealing nuanced patterns that may be obscured in aggregated global data.
These findings carry important educational and policy implications. First, they suggest that global competence is not evenly distributed across the student population, raising concerns about equity in access to GCED (Claes and Stals, 2021). Second, the fact that students from more diverse schools report feeling less respected by teachers points to a need for more robust teacher training in intercultural competence and anti-bias education. Moreover, the relatively low scores in political engagement and global action suggest that GCED in Flanders may be insufficiently empowering or action-oriented, potentially reflecting a broader cultural reluctance to engage in political discourse.
The Flemish education system provides a compelling context for examining how local educational structures, socio-economic disparities and school-level dynamics influence global competence. As a region with a formal commitment to GCED, Flanders has embedded global dimensions into its secondary curriculum through the 2019 reform of attainment targets. These targets, inspired by UNESCO’s vision of GCED, emphasise democratic participation, sustainability and intercultural understanding. However, the implementation of these goals remains uneven across school types and networks, revealing the tension between policy aspirations and classroom realities. One of the most notable features of Flemish secondary education is its stratified structure, which categorises students into four tracks: general (ASO), technical (TSO), vocational (BSO) and artistic (KSO). This stratification has significant implications for students’ exposure to global education opportunities. The study’s findings show that students in general and artistic education outperform their peers in vocational tracks across nearly all dimensions of global competence. These disparities suggest that curricular content, pedagogical approaches and teacher expectations vary considerably between tracks, with vocational students often receiving fewer opportunities for critical engagement with global issues. This structural inequality reflects broader patterns of educational stratification and raises questions about the inclusivity of GCED in practice.
Socio-economic background further compounds disparities in global competence. Students from higher socio-economic backgrounds tend to score higher, particularly in areas such as global knowledge and political engagement. This pattern is well documented in international research, which links access to cultural capital – such as multilingual environments, travel experiences and extracurricular opportunities – to stronger global competence outcomes (Molina and Gallo Cordoba, 2025; Teng and Cosier, 2024). These students benefit from both formal and informal learning contexts that expose them to global issues and intercultural interactions.
Interestingly, students with a migration background in the Flemish sample scored higher than their peers in dimensions such as global-mindedness and intercultural awareness. This finding challenges deficit-based assumptions and aligns with literature suggesting that lived intercultural experiences can enhance students’ global outlook (Guo-Brennan and Guo-Brennan, 2020; Karanikola and Palaiologou, 2025). However, the literature also emphasises that such outcomes are not guaranteed; they depend on whether schools provide inclusive environments that validate and build upon students’ diverse experiences. Without institutional support, the potential of migration-related experiences to foster global competence may remain underutilised.
School-level dynamics also play a critical role in shaping global competence. Students attending schools with predominantly immigrant populations reported lower scores across all dimensions and expressed dissatisfaction with teacher attitudes towards diversity. These perceptions correlate with reduced engagement in global knowledge and action, underscoring the importance of school climate and teacher dispositions in fostering inclusive learning environments (Kim and Cooc, 2023). The study’s data reveal that teachers’ respect for cultural diversity is perceived to be lower in more diverse schools, pointing to systemic challenges in implementing GCED equitably.
Moreover, while GCED is formally emphasised in Flemish policy, its integration into teacher education remains fragmented. Initiatives such as Enabel’s BeGlobal programme support innovation in teaching practices; however, there is a limited systematic incorporation of global-competence training in pre-service teacher education. This gap affects educators’ capacity to deliver GCED effectively and to create classroom environments that support intercultural understanding and critical global engagement.
While this study offers a snapshot of Flemish students’ global competence as of 2021, its findings remain highly relevant in the current educational landscape. Since 2021, Belgium has reaffirmed its commitment to GCED through strategic initiatives, including the updated Strategic Note on GCED and its alignment with the European Declaration on Global Education to 2050. These developments emphasise a more inclusive, critical and mobilising approach to GCED, aiming to integrate formal, non-formal and informal education with civic engagement and policy advocacy. In light of these shifts, the disparities and challenges identified in this study – particularly those related to equity, teacher attitudes and political engagement – gain renewed urgency. They highlight areas where Flemish education must evolve to meet the ambitions of a transformative and socially just GCED framework. Thus, the 2021 data not only provide a baseline but also serve as a call to action for educators and policymakers navigating the evolving demands of global education in 2026.
Recent literature (Yamada et al., 2025) underscores the profound impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on global competence and GCED, reshaping both the modalities and priorities of educational practice. The shift to online and hybrid learning environments has challenged traditional assumptions about how global competencies are cultivated, particularly those that rely on in-person intercultural experiences and mobility. Studies show that while virtual exchanges and online dialogue programs have enabled continued engagement with global issues, they have also exposed persistent inequities in access, participation and outcomes. Moreover, the pandemic has catalysed a rethinking of GCED itself, prompting calls for a ‘post-pandemic citizenship’ model that emphasises empathy, public health awareness and collective responsibility. These developments suggest that the findings of this study – based on data collected in 2021 – should be interpreted not only as a reflection of pre-pandemic educational conditions but also as a baseline for evaluating how Flemish education systems adapt to emerging global challenges and pedagogical innovations in the years following the Covid-19 pandemic.
At the same time, the study highlights the limitations of the PISA framework itself. While PISA’s inclusion of global competence in its 2018 cycle was a landmark move, the framework has been criticised for its conceptual ambiguity, cultural bias and overreliance on self-report data. The cognitive component, though valuable, is limited in scope and may not fully capture students’ ability to navigate complex global and intercultural situations. Furthermore, the framework tends to individualise global competence, overlooking the structural and institutional factors – such as school climate, curriculum design and teacher attitudes – that shape students’ development in this area.
One important limitation of this study lies in its reliance on students’ self-reported data and a single cognitive test item to assess global competence. While self-reports offer valuable insights into students’ perceptions, attitudes and self-efficacy, they are inherently subjective and may be influenced by social desirability bias, response fatigue or limited self-awareness (Akbulut, 2025). This concern is particularly salient given the study’s own critique of the PISA framework’s dependence on self-report instruments. Moreover, the use of only one cognitive item – though carefully selected – restricts the scope of the assessment and may not fully capture the complexity of students’ analytical and problem-solving abilities in intercultural contexts. Future research should consider incorporating a broader range of cognitive tasks and triangulating self-reported data with observational or qualitative methods to enhance the validity and depth of global competence assessment.
While the study offers valuable insights into Flemish students’ global competence, its findings must be interpreted with caution due to limitations in sample representativeness. The participating students were drawn from five schools that responded to an invitation sent to a randomised subset of institutions affiliated with Catholic Education Flanders. Although the initial selection aimed for broad coverage, the final sample – comprising 223 complete responses – reflects a relatively small and self-selecting group. Factors such as the timing of outreach and Covid-19 disruptions likely influenced participation rates. As a result, the sample may not fully capture the diversity of the Flemish secondary school population in terms of geographic distribution, school networks or socio-cultural composition. This limitation affects the generalisability of the findings and underscores the need for future studies with larger, more representative samples to validate and expand upon these results.
Research within the OECD’s global competence framework explicitly posits that competence is multidimensional and must be understood in relation to learners’ socio-cultural contexts (knowledge, skills, attitudes, values and learning opportunities), underscoring holistic, situated approaches (OECD, 2018, 2020). Participatory tools, such as student portfolios, classroom-based projects and reflective journals, offer ways to assess not only what students know but also how they engage with global issues in meaningful and situated ways. These alternatives differ from current instruments by emphasising process over product and by valuing diverse forms of knowledge and expression. Thus, the study’s findings point to the limitations of standardised assessments and reinforce calls in the literature for more inclusive and dialogic approaches to evaluating global competence. While this study provides valuable quantitative insights into Flemish students’ global competence, its methodological scope is limited by the absence of qualitative components. The reliance on self-reported questionnaires and a single cognitive test item offers only a partial view of how global competence is cultivated in schools. To more fully realise the study’s stated aim of conducting critical, context-sensitive research, future investigations should incorporate qualitative methods such as classroom observations, interviews with students and teachers and analysis of curricular materials. These approaches would allow for a deeper understanding of the pedagogical practices, institutional cultures and socio-political dynamics that shape students’ global education experiences. Such methodological expansion would not only enrich the empirical base of the study but also position it more firmly within critical debates on GCED and the politics of assessment.
Given these limitations, future research should pursue several directions. First, there is a need for more mixed-methods studies that combine quantitative assessments with classroom observations, along with interviews and analysis of student work to gain a more comprehensive understanding of how global competence is taught and experienced. Second, researchers should explore alternative assessment models that are more culturally responsive and contextsensitive, potentially drawing on portfolio assessments, project-based learning and peer evaluations. Third, longitudinal studies could help track the development of global competence over time and in response to specific educational interventions.
Finally, future work should critically examine the policy discourse surrounding global competence. While the OECD’s framework has helped legitimise GCED on the global stage, it also risks narrowing the concept to what is measurable and comparable across countries. Researchers and educators must remain vigilant to ensure that global competence education remains grounded in principles of equity, justice and democratic participation – not merely in international benchmarking.
Conclusion
This study contributes to ongoing debates about the measurement and implementation of global competence by demonstrating how structural factors, such as educational tracking, socio-economic status and school climate, shape students’ global education experiences. It reinforces calls in the literature for more holistic and participatory assessment, and it highlights the limitations of standardised tools like PISA in capturing the complexity of global competence.
To advance GCED scholarship and practice, future research should move beyond descriptive analysis and embrace more holistic methodologies. Mixed-methods designs, longitudinal studies and participatory assessment tools, such as portfolios, classroom-based projects and reflective journals, can offer deeper insights into how global competence is cultivated across diverse educational settings. Qualitative approaches, including interviews and classroom observations, would enrich understanding of the pedagogical and institutional dynamics that shape students’ global education experiences. As Saperstein (2023) and Yamada et al. (2025) argue, the post-pandemic era demands a reimagining of citizenship education – one that centres empathy and collective responsibility. This study offers a baseline for such efforts and a call to action for educators and policymakers committed to equity and transformation in global education. Ultimately, fostering global competence is not merely a matter of measurement – it is a matter of educational vision and purpose. As schools navigate the challenges of an increasingly complex and diverse world, they must equip students not only with knowledge and skills, but also with the values and agency to contribute to a more inclusive and sustainable future.
Declarations and conflicts of interest
Research ethics statement
The author conducted the research reported in this article in accordance with institutional and internationally accepted ethical standards.
Consent for publication statement
The author declares that research participants’ informed consent to publication of findings – including photos, videos and any personal or identifiable information – was secured prior to publication.
Conflicts of interest statement
The author declares no conflicts of interest with this work. All efforts to sufficiently anonymise the author during peer review of this article have been made. The author declares no further conflicts with this article.
References
Akbulut,Y. (2025). Beyond self-reports: Addressing bias and improving data quality in educational research. Journal of Measurement and Evaluation in Education and Psychology 16 (2) :115–123, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.21031/epod.1630477
Andreotti,V O. (2006). Soft versus critical global citizenship education. Development Education in Policy and Practice 3 :40–51.
Andreotti,V O; Souza,L M T M d. (2012). Postcolonial perspectives on global citizenship education. Routledge.
Auld,E; Morris,P. (2019). Science by streetlight and the OECD’s measure of global competence: A new yardstick for internationalisation?. Policy Futures in Education 17 (6) :677–698, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1478210318819246
BeGlobal,. (n.d.). Framework: Sustainable global approach: Enabel, https://beglobal.enabel.be/about-us/framework/?lang=en.
Claes,E; Stals,L. (2021). Students’ and teachers’ results in the IEA International Civic and Citizenship Education Studies in Flanders (Belgium): Implications for cross-curricular approaches to civic education. Influences of the IEA civic and citizenship education studies: Practice, policy, and research across countries and regions. Malak-Minkiewicz,B, Torney-Purta,JJ(ed s .), Springer International Publishing, pp.3–11.
Cobb,D; Couch,D. (2022). Locating inclusion within the OECD’s assessment of global competence: An inclusive future through PISA 2018?. Policy Futures in Education 20 (1) :56–72.
Engel,L C; Rutkowski,D; Thompson,G. (2019). Toward an international measure of global competence? A critical look at the PISA 2018 framework. Globalisation, Societies and Education 17 (2) :117–131, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14767724.2019.1642183
Griffith,R L; Wolfeld,L; Armon,B K; Rios,J; Liu,O L. (2016). Assessing intercultural competence in higher education: Existing research and future directions. ETS Research Report Series 2016 (2) :1–44, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ets2.12112
Guo-Brennan,L; Guo-Brennan,M. (2020). Global citizenship education and social justice for immigrant students: Implications for administration, leadership, and teaching in schools. Handbook on promoting social justice in education. Papa,R(ed.), Springer, pp.1–20, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-74078-2_40-1
Karanikola,Z; Palaiologou,N. (2025). Building resilience: The critical role of multicultural education to cope with the psychological trauma of migrant and refugee youth. Behavioral Sciences 15 (7) 916 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/bs15070916 40723700
Kim,G M; Cooc,N. (2023). Student immigration, migration, and teacher preparation. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 49 (13) :3222–3244.
Molina,A; Gallo Cordoba,B. (2025). School privatization and socio-economic segregation: An international comparison of effects on student global competence using PISA 2018. International Journal of Education Policy and Leadership 21 (2) :1–35, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.22230/ijepl.2025v21n2a1471
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2018). Preparing our youth for an inclusive and sustainable world: The OECD PISA global competence framework. OECD Publishing.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2020). PISA 2018 results (volume VI): Are students ready to thrive in an interconnected world?. OECD Publishing, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/d5f68679-en
Open University. (2025). Introduction to making political and social change: 1.1 What is active citizenship?. OpenLearn. https://www.open.edu/openlearn/society-politics-law/introduction-making-political-and-social-change/content-section-1.1.
Osler,A. (2011). Teacher interpretations of citizenship education: National identity, cosmopolitan ideals, and political realities. Journal of Curriculum Studies 43 (1) :1–24, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2010.503245
Oxley,L; Morris,P. (2013). Global citizenship: A typology for distinguishing its multiple conceptions. British Journal of Educational Studies 61 (3) :301–325, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00071005.2013.798393
Reysen,S; Katzarska-Miller,I. (2013). A model of global citizenship: Antecedents and outcomes. International Journal of Psychology 48 (5) :858–870. 22804560
Saperstein,E. (2023). Post-pandemic citizenship: The next phase of global citizenship education. Prospects 53 (3–4) :203–217, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11125-021-09594-2 35001977
Teng,Y; Cosier,M E. (2024). Influences of cultural capital and internationalization on global competence in higher education: A systematic literature review. Frontiers in Education 9 1397642 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2024.1397642
Vaccari,V; Gardinier,M P. (2019). Toward one world or many? A comparative analysis of global citizenship education and UNESCO global education policy documents. International Journal of Development Education and Global Learning 11 (1) :68–86, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.18546/ijdegl.11.1.05
Westheimer,J; Kahne,J. (2004). What kind of citizen? The politics of educating for democracy. American Educational Research Journal 41 (2) :237–269, www.un.org/en/academic-impact/global-citizenship. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/00028312041002237
Yamada,R; Yamada,A; Mori,R; Sugitani,Y; Kimura,T; Sun,S. (2025). Cultivation of global competencies in the post-COVID-19 era: A multinational survey. Journal of Comparative and International Higher Education 17 (2) :97–114, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.32674/ka00v544