global in education definition

• Tools and Resources
• Customer Services
• Original Language Spotlight
• Alternative and Non-formal Education 
• Cognition, Emotion, and Learning
• Curriculum and Pedagogy
• Education and Society
• Education, Change, and Development
• Education, Cultures, and Ethnicities
• Education, Gender, and Sexualities
• Education, Health, and Social Services
• Educational Administration and Leadership
• Educational History
• Educational Politics and Policy
• Educational Purposes and Ideals
• Educational Systems
• Educational Theories and Philosophies
• Globalization, Economics, and Education
• Languages and Literacies
• Professional Learning and Development
• Research and Assessment Methods
• Technology and Education
• Share This Facebook LinkedIn Twitter

Article contents

Globalization and education.

• Liz Jackson Liz Jackson University of Hong Kong
• https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.013.52
• Published online: 26 October 2016

Few would deny that processes of globalization have impacted education around the world in many important ways. Yet the term “globalization” is relatively new, and its meaning or nature, conceptualization, and impact remain essentially contested within the educational research community. There is no global consensus on the exact time period of its occurrence or its most significant shaping processes, from those who focus on its social and cultural framings to those that hold global political-economic systems or transnational social actors as most influential. Intersecting questions also arise regarding whether its influence on human communities and the world should be conceived of as mostly good or mostly bad, which have significant implications for debates regarding the relationship between globalization and education. Competing understandings of globalization also undergird diverse methodologies and perspectives in expanding fields of research into the relationship between education and globalization.

There are many ways to frame the relationship of globalization and education. Scholars often pursue the topic by examining globalization’s perceived impact on education, as in many cases global convergence around educational policies, practices, and values has been observed in the early 21st century. Yet educational borrowing and transferal remains unstraightforward in practice, as educational and cultural differences across social contexts remain, while ultimate ends of education (such as math competencies versus moral cultivation) are essentially contested. Clearly, specificity is important to understand globalization in relation to education. As with globalization generally, globalization in education cannot be merely described as harmful or beneficial, but depends on one’s position, perspective, values, and priorities.

Education and educators’ impacts on globalization also remain a worthwhile focus of exploration in research and theorization. Educators do not merely react to globalization and related processes, but purposefully interact with them, as they prepare their students to respond to challenges and opportunities posed by processes associated with globalization. As cultural and political-economic considerations remain crucial in understanding globalization and education, positionality and research ethics and reflexivity remain important research concerns, to understand globalization not just as homogeneity or oppressive top-down features, but as complex and dynamic local and global intersections of people, ideas, and goods, with unclear impacts in the future.

• globalization
• economic integration
• education borrowing
• global studies in education
• comparative education
• education development

Few would deny that processes of globalization have impacted education around the world in many important ways. Yet the term “globalization” is relatively new, and its meaning or nature, conceptualization, and impact remain essentially contested within the educational research community. Competing understandings of globalization undergird diverse methodologies and perspectives in the expanding web of fields researching the relationship between education and globalization examined below. The area of educational research which exploded at the turn of the 21st century requires a holistic view. Rather than take sides within this contentious field, it is useful to examine major debates and trends, and indicate where readers can learn more about particular specialist areas within the field and other relevant strands of research.

The first part below considers the development of the theorization and conceptualization of globalization and debates about its impact that are relevant to education. The next section examines the relationship between education and globalization as explored by the educational research community. There are many ways to frame the relationship between globalization and education. First explored here is the way that globalization can be seen to impact education, as global processes and practices have been observed to influence many educational systems’ policies and structures; values and ideals; pedagogy; curriculum and assessment; as well as broader conceptualizations of teacher and learner, and the good life. However, there is also a push in the other direction—through global citizenship education, education for sustainable development, and related trends—to understand education and educators as shapers of globalization, so these views are also explored here. The last section highlights relevant research directions.

The Emergence of Globalization(s)

At the broadest level, globalization can be defined as a process or condition of the cultural, political, economic, and technological meeting and mixing of people, ideas, and resources, across local, national, and regional borders, which has been largely perceived to have increased in intensity and scale during the late 20th and early 21st centuries. However, there is no global consensus on the exact time period of its occurrence, or its most significant shaping processes, from social and cultural framings to those that hold global political-economic systems or transnational social actors as most influential. Intersecting questions also arise regarding whether its influence on human communities and the world should be conceived as mostly good or mostly bad, which have clear and significant implications for understanding debates regarding the relationship between globalization and education.

Conceptualizing Globalization

Globalization is a relatively recent concept in scholarly research, becoming popular in public, academic, and educational discourse only in the 1980s. However, many leading scholars of globalization have argued that the major causes or shapers of globalization, particularly the movement and mixing of elements beyond a local or national level, is at least many centuries old; others frame globalization as representing processes inherent to the human experience, within a 5,000–10,000-year time frame. 1 Conceptualizations of globalization have typically highlighted cultural, political-economic, and/or technological aspects of these processes, with different researchers emphasizing and framing the relationships among these different aspects in diverse ways in their theories.

Cultural framings: Emphasizing the cultural rather than economic or political aspects of globalization, Roland Robertson pinpointed the occurrence of globalization as part of the process of modernity in Europe (though clearly similar processes were occurring in many parts of the world), particularly a growing mutual recognition among nationality-based communities. 2 As people began identifying with larger groups, beyond their family, clan, or tribe, “relativization” took place, as people saw others in respective outside communities similarly developing national or national-like identities. 3 Through identifying their own societies as akin to those of outsiders, people began measuring their cultural and political orders according to a broader, international schema, and opening their eyes to transnational inspirations for internal social change.

Upon mutual recognition of nations, kingdoms, and the like as larger communities that do not include all of humanity, “emulation” stemming from comparison of the local to the external was often a next step. 4 While most people and communities resisted, dismissed, or denied the possibility of a global human collectivity, they nonetheless compared their own cultures and lives with those beyond their borders. Many world leaders across Eurasia looked at other “civilizations” with curiosity, and began increasing intercultural and international interactions to benefit from cultural mixing, through trade, translation of knowledge, and more. With emulation and relativization also came a sense of a global standard of values, for goods and resources, and for the behavior and organization of individuals and groups in societies, though ethnocentrism and xenophobia was also often a part of such “global” comparison. 5

Political-economic framings: In political theory and popular understanding, nationalism has been a universalizing discourse in the modern era, wherein individuals around the world have been understood to belong to and identify primarily with largely mutually exclusive national or nation-state “imagined communities.” 6 In this context, appreciation for and extensive investigation of extranational and international politics and globalization were precluded for a long time in part due to the power of nationalistic approaches. However, along with the rise historically of nationalist and patriotic political discourse, theories of cosmopolitanism also emerged. Modern cosmopolitanism as a concept unfolded particularly in the liberalism of Immanuel Kant, who argued for a spirit of “world citizenship” toward “perpetual peace,” wherein people recognize themselves as citizens of the world. 7 Martha Nussbaum locates cosmopolitanism’s roots in the more distant past, however, observing Diogenes the Cynic (ca. 404–323 bce ) in Ancient Greece famously identifying as “a citizen of the world.” 8 This suggests that realization of commonality, common humanity, and the risks of patriotism and nationalism as responses to relativization and emulation have enabled at least a “thin” kind of global consciousness for a very long time, as a precursor to today’s popular awareness of globalization, even if such a global consciousness was in ancient history framed within regional rather than planetary discourse.

In the same way as culturally oriented globalization scholars, those theorizing from an economic and/or political perspective conceive the processes of globalization emerging most substantively in the 15th and 16th centuries, through the development of the capitalist world economic system and the growth of British- and European-based empires holding vast regions of land in Africa, Asia, and the Americas as colonies to enhance trade and consumption within empire capitals. According to Immanuel Wallerstein’s world system theory, which emerged before globalization theory, in the 1970s, the capitalist world economic system is one of the most essential framing elements of the human experience around the world in the modern (or postmodern) era. 9 Interaction across societies primarily for economic purposes, “ not bounded by a unitary political structure,” characterizes the world economy, as well as a capitalist order, which conceives the main purpose of international economic exchange as being the endless generation and accumulation of capital. 10 A kind of global logic was therein introduced, which has expanded around the globe as we now see ourselves as located within an international financial system.

Though some identify world system theory as an alternative or precursor to globalization theories (given Wallerstein’s own writing, which distinguished his view from globalization views 11 ), its focus on a kind of planetary global logic interrelates with globalization theories emerging in the 1980s and 1990s. 12 Additionally, its own force and popularity in public and academic discussions enabled the kind of global consciousness and sense of global interrelation of people which we can regard as major assumptions underpinning the major political-economic theories of globalization and the social imaginary of globalization 13 that came after.

Globalization emerged within common discourse as the process of international economic and political integration and interdependency was seen to deepen and intensify during and after the Cold War era of international relations. At that time, global ideologies were perceived which spanned diverse cultures and nation-states, while global economic and military interdependency became undeniable facts of the human condition. Thus, taking world systems theory as a starting point, global capitalism models have theorized the contemporary economic system, recognizing aspects of world society not well suited to the previously popular nationalistic ways of thinking about international affairs. Leslie Sklair 14 and William Robinson 15 highlighted the transnational layer of capitalistic economic activity, including practices, actors and social classes, and ideologies of international production and trade, elaborated by Robinson as “an emergent transnational state apparatus,” a postnational or extranational ideological, political, and practical system for societies, individuals, and groups to interact in the global space beyond political borders. 16 Globalization is thus basically understood as a process or condition of contemporary human life, at the broadest level, rather than a single event or activity.

Technological framings: In the 1980s and 1990s, the impact of technology on many people’s lives, beliefs, and activities rose tremendously, altering the global political economy by adding an intensity of transnational communication and (financial and information) trading capabilities. Manuel Castells argued that technological advancements forever altered the economy by creating networks of synchronous or near-synchronous communication and trade of information. 17 Anthony Giddens likewise observed globalization’s essence as “time-space distanciation”: “the intensification of worldwide social relations which link distant localities in such a way that local happenings are shaped by events occurring many miles away and vice versa.” 18 As information became present at hand with the widespread use of the Internet, a postindustrial society has also been recognized as a feature of globalization, wherein skills and knowledge to manipulate data and networks become more valuable than producing goods or trading material resources.

Today, globalization is increasingly understood as having interrelating cultural, political-economic, and technological dimensions, and theorists have thus developed conceptualizations and articulations of globalization that work to emphasize the ways that these aspects intersect in human experience. Arjun Appadurai’s conception of global flows frames globalization as taking place as interactive movements or waves of interlinked practices, people, resources, and ideologies: ethnoscapes, mediascapes, technoscapes, finanscapes, and ideoscapes. 19 Ethnoscapes are waves of people moving across cultures and borders, while mediascapes are moving local, national, and international constructions of information and images. Technoscapes enable (and limit) interactions of peoples, cultures, and resources through technology, while finanscapes reflect intersection values and valuations; human, capital, and national resources; and more. Ideoscapes reflect competing, interacting, reconstructing ideologies, cultures, belief systems, and understandings of the world and humanity. Through these interactive processes, people, things, and ideas move and move each other, around the world. 20

Evaluating Globalization

While the explanatory function of Appadurai’s vision of globalization’s intersecting dimensions is highlighted above, many theories of globalization emphasize normative positions in relation to the perceived impact of global and transnational processes and practices on humanity and the planet. Normative views of globalization may be framed as skeptical , globalist , or transformationalist . As Fazal Rizvi and Bob Lingard note, these are ideal types, rather than clearly demarcated practical parties or camps of theorists, though they have become familiar and themselves a part of the social imaginary of globalization (that is, the way globalization is perceived in normative and empirical ways by ordinary people rather than researchers). 21 The positions are also reflected in the many educational discourses relating to globalization, despite their ideological rather than simply empirical content.

Skeptical views: Approaches to globalization in research that are described as skeptical may question or problematize globalization discourse in one of two different ways. The first type of skepticism questions the significance of globalization. The second kind of skepticism tends to embrace the idea of globalization, but regards its impact on people, communities, and/or the planet as negative or risky, overall.

As discussed here, global or international processes are hardly new, while globalization became a buzzword only in the last decades of the 20th century. Thus a first type of skeptic may charge that proponents of globalization or globalization theory are emphasizing the newness of global processes for ulterior motives, as a manner of gaining attention for their work, celebrating that which should instead be seen as problematic capitalist economic relations, for example. Alternatively, some argue that the focus on globalization in research, theorization, and popular discourse fails to recognize the agency of people and communities as actors in the world today, and for this reason should be avoided and replaced by a focus on the “transnational.” As Michael Peter Smith articulates, ordinary individual people, nation-states, and their practices remain important within the so-called global system; a theory of faceless, ahistorical globalization naturalizes global processes and precludes substantive elaboration of how human (and national) actors have played and continue to play primary roles in the world through processes of knowledge and value construction, and through interpersonal and transnational activities. 22

The second strand of globalization skepticism might be referred to as antiglobalist or antiglobalization positions. Thinkers in this vein regard globalization as a mark of our times, but highlight the perceived negative impacts of globalization on people and communities. Culturally, this can include homogenization and loss of indigenous knowledge, and ways of life, or cultural clashes that are seen to arise out of the processes of relativization and emulation in some cases. George Ritzer coined the term “McDonaldization” to refer to the problematic elements of the rise of a so-called global culture. 23 More than simply the proliferation of McDonalds fast-food restaurants around the world, McDonaldization, according to Ritzer, includes a valuation of efficiency over humanity in production and consumption practices, a focus on quantity over quality, and control and technology over creativity and culture. Global culture is seen as a negative by others who conceive it as mainly the product of a naïve cultural elite of international scholars and business people, in contrast with “low-end globalization,” which is the harsher realities faced by the vast majority of people not involved in international finance, diplomacy, or academic research. 24

Alternatively, Benjamin Barber 25 and Samuel Huntington 26 have focused on “Jihad versus McWorld” and the “clash of civilizations,” respectively, as cultures can be seen to mix in negative and unfriendly ways in the context of globalization. Although Francis Fukuyama and other hopeful globalists perceived a globalization of Western liberal democracy at the turn of the 21st century, 27 unforeseen global challenges such as terrorism have fueled popular claims by Barber and Huntington that cultural differences across major “civilizations” (international ideological groupings), particularly of liberal Western civilization and fundamentalist Islam, preclude their peaceful relativization, homogenization, and/or hybridization, and instead function to increase violent interactions of terrorism and war.

Similarly, but moving away from cultural aspects of globalization, Ulrich Beck highlighted risk as essential to understanding globalization, as societies face new problems that may be related to economy or even public health, and as their interdependencies with others deepen and increase. 28 Beck gave the example of Mad Cow disease (bovine spongiform encephalopathy) as one instance where much greater and more broadly distributed risks have been created through global economic and political processes. Skeptical economic theories of globalization likewise highlight how new forms of inequality emerge as global classes and labor markets are created. For instance, Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri argue that a faceless power impersonally oppresses grassroots people despite the so-called productivity of globalization (that is, the growth of capital it enables) from a capitalist economic orientation. 29 It is this faceless but perceived inhumane power that has fueled globalization protests, particularly of the meetings of the World Trade Organization in the 1990s and 2000s, in the United States and Europe.

In light of such concerns, Walden Bello argued for “deglobalization,” a reaction and response by people that aims to fight against globalization and reorient communities to local places and local lifestyles. Bello endorsed a radical shift to a decentralized, pluralistic system of governance from a political-economic perspective. 30 Similarly, Colin Hines argues for localization, reclaiming control over local economies that should become as diverse as possible to rebuild stability within communities. 31 Such ideas have found a broad audience, as movements to “buy local” and “support local workers” have spread around the world rapidly in the 2000s.

Globalist views: Globalists include researchers and advocates who highlight the benefits of globalization to different communities and in various areas of life, often regarding it as necessary or natural. Capitalist theories of globalization regard it as ideal for production and consumption, as greater specialism around the world increases efficiency. 32 The productive power of globalization is also highlighted by Giddens, who sees the potential for global inclusivity and enhanced creative dialogue arising (at least in part) from global processes. 33 In contrast with neoliberal (pro-capitalism) policies, Giddens propagated the mixture of the market and state interventions (socialism and Keynesian economy), and believed that economic policies with socially inclusive ideas would influence social and educational policies and thus promote enhanced social development.

The rise of global culture enhances the means for people to connect with one another to improve life and give it greater meaning, and can increase mutual understanding. As democracy becomes popular around the world as a result of global communication processes, Scott Burchill has argued that universal human rights can be achieved to enhance global freedom in the near future. 34 Joseph Stiglitz likewise envisioned a democratizing globalization that can include developing countries on an equal basis and transform “economic beings” to “human beings” with values of community and social justice. 35 Relatedly, some globalists contend against skeptics that cultural and economic-political or ideological hybridity and “glocalization,” as well as homogenization or cultural clashes, often can and do take place. Under glocalization , understood as local-level globalization processes (rather than top-down intervention), local actors interact dynamically with, and are not merely oppressed by, ideas, products, things, and practices from outside and beyond. Thus, while we can find instances of “Jihad” and “McWorld,” so too can we find Muslims enjoying fast food, Westerners enjoying insights and activities from Muslim and Eastern communities, and a variety of related intercultural dialogues and a dynamic reorganization of cultural and social life harmoniously taking place.

Transformationalist views: Globalization is increasingly seen by educators (among others) around the globe to have both positive and negative impacts on communities and individuals. Thus, most scholars today hold nuanced, middle positions between skepticism and globalism, such as David Held and Anthony McGrew’s transformationalist stance. 36 As Rizvi and Lingard note, globalization processes have material consequences in the world that few would flatly deny, while people increasingly do see themselves as interconnected around the globe, by technology, trade, and more. 37 On the other hand, glocalization is often a mixed blessing, from a comparative standpoint. Global processes do not happen outside of political and economic contexts, and while some people clearly benefit from them, others may not appear to benefit from or desire processes and conditions related to globalization.

Thus, Rizvi and Lingard identify globalization “as an empirical fact that describes the profound shifts that are taking place in the world; as an ideology that masks various expression of power and a range of political interests; and as a social imaginary that expresses the sense people have of their own identity and how it relates to the rest of the world, and … their aspirations and expectations.” 38 Such an understanding of globalization enables its continuous evaluation in terms of dynamic interrelated practices, processes, and ideas, as experienced and engaged with by people and groups within complex transnational webs of organization. Understandings of globalization thus link to education in normative and empirical ways within research. It is to the relationship of globalization to education that we now turn.

Historical Background

Globalization and education are highly interrelated from a historical view. At the most basic level, historical processes that many identify as essential precursors to political-economic globalization during the late modern colonial and imperialist eras influenced the development and rise of mass education. Thus, what we commonly see around the world today as education, mass schooling of children, could be regarded as a first instance of globalization’s impact on education, as in many non-Western contexts traditional education had been conceived as small-scale, local community-based, and as vocational or apprenticeship education, and/or religious training. 39 In much of Africa, Asia, the Middle East, and the indigenous Americas and Australasia, institutionalized formal schools emerged for the first time within colonial or (often intersecting) missionary projects, for local elite youth and children of expatriate officials.

The first educational scholarship with a global character from a historical point of view would thus be research related to colonial educational projects, such as in India, Africa, and East Asia, which served to create elite local communities to serve colonial officials, train local people to work in economic industries benefiting the colony, and for preservation of the status quo. Most today would describe this education as not part of an overall development project belonging to local communities, but as a foreign intervention for global empire maintenance or social control. As postcolonial educational theorists such as Paulo Freire have seen it, this education sought to remove and dismiss local culture as inferior, and deny local community needs for the sake of power consolidation of elites, and it ultimately served as a system of oppression on psychological, cultural, and material levels. 40 It has been associated by diverse cultural theorists within and outside the educational field with the loss of indigenous language and knowledge production, with moral and political inculcation, and with the spread of English as an elite language of communication across the globe. 41

Massification of education in the service of local communities in most developing regions roughly intersected with the period after the Second World War and in the context of national independence movements, wherein nationally based communities reorganized as politically autonomous nation-states (possibly in collaboration with former colonial parties). In 1945 , the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) emerged, as the United Nations recognized education as critical for future global peace and prosperity, preservation of cultural diversity, and global progress toward stability, economic flourishing, and human rights. UNESCO has advocated for enhancement of quality and access to education around the world through facilitating the transnational distribution of educational resources, establishing (the discourse of) a global human right to education, promoting international transferability of educational and teaching credentials, developing mechanisms for measuring educational achievement across countries and regions, and supporting national and regional scientific and cultural developments. 42 The World Bank, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), and United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) have engaged in similar work.

Thus, the first modern global educational research was that conducted by bodies affiliated with or housed under UNESCO, such as the International Bureau of Education, the UNESCO Institute for Statistics, and the International Institute of Educational Planning, which are regarded as foundational bodies sponsoring international and comparative research. In research universities, educational borrowing across international borders became one significant topic of research for an emerging field of scholars identified as comparative educational researchers. Comparative education became a major field of educational inquiry in the first half of the 20th century, and expanded in the 1950s and 1960s. 43 Comparative educational research then focused on aiding developing countries’ education and improving domestic education through cross-national examinations of educational models and achievement. Today, comparative education remains one major field among others that focuses on globalization and education, including international education and global studies in education.

Globalization as a contemporary condition or process clearly shapes education around the globe, in terms of policies and values; curriculum and assessment; pedagogy; educational organization and leadership; conceptions of the learner, the teacher, and the good life; and more. Though, following the legacy of the primacy of a nation-state and systems-theory levels of analysis, it is traditionally conceived that educational ideas and changes move from the top, such as from UNESCO and related bodies and leading societies, to the developing world, we find that often glocalization and hybridity, rather than simple borrowing, are taking place. On the other hand, education is also held by scholars and political leaders to be a key to enhancing the modern (or postmodern) human condition, as a symbol of progress of the global human community, realized as global citizenship education, education for sustainable development, and related initiatives. 44 The next subsections consider how globalization processes have been explored in educational research as shapers of education, and how education and educators can also be seen to influence globalization.

Research on Globalization’s Impact on Education

Global and transnational processes and practices have been observed to influence and impact various aspects of contemporary education within many geographical contexts, and thus the fields of research related to education and globalization are vast: they are not contained simply within one field or subfield, but can be seen to cross subdisciplinary borders, in policy studies, curriculum, pedagogy, higher education studies, assessment, and more. As mentioned previously, modern education can itself be seen as one most basic instance of globalization, connected to increased interdependency of communities around the world in economic and political affairs first associated with imperialism and colonialism, and more recently with the capitalist world economy. And as the modern educational system cannot be seen as removed or sealed off from cultural and political-economic processes involved in most conceptualizations of globalization, the impacts of globalization processes upon education are often considered wide-ranging, though many are also controversial.

Major trends: From a functionalist perspective, the globalization of educational systems has been influenced by new demands and desires for educational transferability, of students and educators. In place of dichotomous systems in terms of academic levels and credentialing, curriculum, and assessment, increasing convergence can be observed today, as it is recognized that standardization makes movement of people in education across societies more readily feasible, and that such movement of people can enhance education in a number of ways (to achieve diversity, to increase specialization and the promotion of dedicated research centers, to enhance global employability, and so on). 45 Thus, the mobility and paths of movement of students and academics, for education and better life opportunities, have been a rapidly expanding area of research. A related phenomenon is that of offshore university and school campuses—the mobility of educational institutions to attract and recruit new students (and collect fees), such as New York University in Abu Dhabi and Shanghai. By implication, education is often perceived as becoming more standardized around the globe, though hybridity can also be observed at the micro level.

How economic integration under globalization impacts local educational systems has been traced by Rizvi and Lingard. 46 As they note, from a broad view, the promotion of neoliberal values in the context of financial adjustment and restructuring of poorer countries under trade and debt agreements led by intergovernmental organizations, most notably the OECD, encouraged, first, fiscal discipline in educational funding (particularly impacting the payment of educators in many regions) and, second, the redistribution of funds to areas of education seen as more economically productive, namely primary education, and to efforts at privatization and deregulation of education. While the educational values of countries can and do vary, from democracy and peace, to social justice and equity, and so on, Rizvi and Lingard also observed that social and economic efficiency views have become dominant within governments and their educational policy units. 47 Though human capital theory has always supported the view that individuals gain proportionately according to the investment in their education and training, this view has become globalized in recent decades to emphasize how whole societies can flourish under economic interdependency via enhanced education.

These policy-level perspectives have had serious implications for how knowledge and thus curriculum are increasingly perceived. As mentioned previously, skills for gaining knowledge have taken precedent over knowledge accumulation, with the rise of technology and postindustrial economies. In relation, “lifelong learning,” learning to be adaptive to challenges outside the classroom and not merely to gain academic disciplinary knowledge, has become a focal point for education systems around the globe in the era of globalization. 48 Along with privatization of education, as markets are seen as more efficient than government systems of provision, models of educational choice and educational consumption have become normalized as alternatives to the historical status quo of traditional academic or intellectual, teacher-centered models. Meanwhile, the globalization of educational testing—that is, the use of the same tests across societies around the world—has had a tremendous impact on local pedagogies, assessment, and curricula the world over. Though in each country decision-making structures are not exactly the same, many societies face pressure to focus on math, science, and languages over other subjects, as a result of the primacy of standardized testing to measure and evaluate educational achievement and the effectiveness of educational systems. 49

However, there remains controversy over what education is the best in the context of relativization and emulation of educational practices and students, and therefore the 2010s have seen extraordinary transfers of educational approaches, not just from core societies to peripheral or developing areas, but significant horizontal movements of educational philosophies and practices from West to East and East to West. With the rise of global standardized tests such as the OECD’s Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), educational discourse in Western societies has increasingly emphasized the need to reorient education to East Asian models (such as Singapore or Shanghai), seen as victors of the tests. 50 On the other hand, many see Finland’s educational system as ideal in relation to its economic integration in society and focus on equity in structure and orientation, and thus educators in the Middle East, East Asia, and the United States have also been seen to consider emulating Finnish education in the 2010s. 51

Evaluations: From a normative point of view, some regard changes to local education in many contexts brought about by globalization as harmful and risky. Freire’s postcolonial view remains salient to those who remain concerned that local languages and indigenous cultural preservation are being sacrificed for elite national and international interests. 52 There can be no doubt that language diversity has been decreasing over time, while indigenous knowledge is being reframed within globalist culture as irrelevant to individual youths’ material needs. 53 Many are additionally skeptical of the sometimes uncritical adoption of educational practices, policies, and discourse from one region of the globe to another. In many countries in Africa and the Middle East, ideas and curricula are borrowed from the United Kingdom, the United States, or Finland in an apparently hasty manner, only to be discarded for the next reform, when it is not found to fit neatly and efficiently within the local educational context (for instance, given local educational values, structures and organizations, and educator and student views). 54 Others argue, in parallel to globalization skeptics, that globalization’s major impact on education has actually been the promotion of a thin layer of aspirational, cosmopolitan values among global cultural elites, who largely overlook the realities, problems, and challenges many face. 55

On the other hand, the case for globalization as a general enhancer of education worldwide has compelling evidence as well. Due to the work of UNESCO, the OECD, and related organizations, educational attainment has become more equitable globally, by nation, race, gender, class, and other markers of social inequality; and educational access has been recognized as positively aligned with personal and national economic improvement, according to quantitative educational researchers. 56 (David Hill, Nigel Greaves, and Alpesh Maisuria argue from a Marxist viewpoint that education in conjunction with global capitalism reinforces rather than decreases inequality and inequity; yet they also note that capitalism can be and often has been successfully regulated to diminish rather than increase inequality generally across countries. 57 ) As education has been effectively conceived as a human right in the era of globalization, societies with historically uneven access to education are on track to systematically enhance educational quality and access.

Changes to the way knowledge and the learner have been conceived, particularly with the rise of ubiquitous technology, are also often regarded as positive overall. People around the world have more access to information than ever before with the mass use of the Internet, and students of all ages can access massive open online courses (MOOCs); dynamic, data-rich online encyclopedias; and communities of like-minded scholars through social networks and forums. 58 In brick-and-mortar classrooms, educators and students are more diverse than ever due to enhanced educational mobility, and both are exposed to a greater variety of ideas and perspectives that can enhance learning for all participants. Credentials can be earned from reputable universities online, with supervision systems organized by leading scholars in global studies in education in many cases. Students have more choices when it comes to learning independently or alongside peers, mentors, or experts, in a range of disciplines, vocations, and fields.

The truth regarding how globalization processes and practices are impacting contemporary education no doubt lies in focusing somewhere in between the promises and the risks, depending on the context in question: the society, the educational level, the particular community, and so on. Particularly with regard to the proposed benefits of interconnectivity and networked ubiquitous knowledge spurred by technology, critics contend that the promise of globalization for enhancing education has been severely overrated. Elites remain most able to utilize online courses and use technologies due to remaining inequalities in material and human resources. 59 At local levels, globalization in education (more typically discussed as internationalization) remains contentious in many societies, as local values, local students and educators, and local educational trends can at times be positioned as at odds with the priorities of globalization, of internationalizing curricula, faculty, and student bodies. As part of the social imaginary of globalization, international diversity can become a buzzword, while cultural differences across communities can result in international students and faculty members becoming ghettoized on campus. 60 International exchanges of youth and educators for global citizenship education can reflect political and economic differences between communities, not merely harmonious interconnection and mutual appreciation. 61 In this context of growing ambivalence, education and educators are seen increasingly as part of the solution to the problems and challenges of the contemporary world that are associated with globalization, as educators can respond to such issues in a proactive rather than a passive way, to ensure globalization’s challenges do not exceed its benefits to individuals and communities.

Education’s Potential Impact on Globalization

As globalization is increasingly regarded with ambivalence in relation to the perceived impact of global and transnational actors and processes on local educational systems, educators are increasingly asked not to respond passively to globalization, through enacting internationalization and global economic agendas or echoing simplistic conceptualizations or evaluations of globalization via their curriculum. Instead, education has been reframed in the global era as something youth needs, not just to accept globalization but to interact with it in a critical and autonomous fashion. Two major trends have occurred in curriculum and pedagogy research, wherein education is identified as an important potential shaper of globalization. These are global citizenship education (also intersecting with what are called 21st-century learning and competencies) and education for sustainable development.

Global citizenship education: Global citizenship education has been conceived by political theorists and educational philosophers as a way to speak back to globalization processes seen as harmful to individuals and communities. As Martha Nussbaum has argued, educators should work to develop in students feelings of compassion, altruism, and empathy that extend beyond national borders. 62 Kathy Hytten has likewise written that students need to learn today as part of global citizenship education not just feelings of sympathy for people around the world, but critical skills to identify root causes of problems that intersect the distinction of local and global, as local problems can be recognized as interconnected with globalization processes. 63 In relation to this, UNESCO and nongovernmental organizations and foundations such as Oxfam and the Asia Society have focused on exploring current practices and elaborating best practices from a global comparative standpoint for the dissemination of noncognitive, affective, “transversal” 21st-century competencies, to extend civic education in the future in the service of social justice and peace, locally and globally. 64

Questions remain in this area in connection with implementation within curriculum and pedagogy. A first question is whether concepts of altruism, empathy, and even harmony, peace, and justice, are translatable, with equivalent meanings across cultural contexts. There is evidence that global citizenship education aimed at educating for values to face the potential harms of globalization is converging around the world on such aims as instilling empathy and compassion, respect and appreciation of diversity, and personal habits or virtues of open-mindedness, curiosity, and creativity. However, what these values, virtues, and dispositions look like, how they are demonstrated, and their appropriate expressions remain divergent as regards Western versus Eastern and African societies (for example). 65 By implication, pedagogical or curriculum borrowing or transferral in this area may be problematic, even if some basic concepts are shared and even when best practices can be established within a cultural context.

Additionally, how these skills, competencies, and dispositions intersect with the cognitive skills and political views of education across societies with different cultures of teaching and learning also remains contentious. In line with the controversies over normative views of globalization, whether the curriculum should echo globalist or skeptical positions remains contested by educators and researchers in the field. Some argue that a focus on feelings can be overrated or even harmful in such education, given the immediacy and evidence of global social justice issues that can be approached rationally and constructively. 66 Thus, token expressions of cultural appreciation can be seen to preclude a deeper engagement with social justice issues if the former becomes a goal in itself. On the other hand, the appropriate focus on the local versus the global, and on the goods versus the harms of globalization, weighs differently across and within societies, from one individual educator to the next. Thus, a lack of evidence of best practices in relation to the contestation over ultimate goals creates ambivalence at the local level among many educators about what and how to teach global citizenship or 21st-century skills, apart from standardized knowledge in math, science, and language.

Education for sustainable development: Education for sustainable development is a second strand of curriculum and pedagogy that speaks back to globalization and that is broadly promoted by UNESCO and related intergovernmental and nongovernmental organizations. Education for sustainable development is, like global citizenship education, rooted in globalization’s impact upon individuals in terms of global consciousness. Like global citizenship, education for sustainable development also emphasizes global interconnection in relation to development and sustainability challenges. It is also a broad umbrella term that reflects an increasingly wide array of practices, policies, and programs, formal and informal, for instilling virtues and knowledge and skills seen to enable effective responses to challenges brought about by globalization. 67 In particular, education for sustainable development has seen global progress, like globalization, as enmeshed in intersecting cultural, social, and economic and political values and priorities. Education for All is an interrelated complementary thread of UNESCO work, which sees access to education as a key to social justice and development, and the improvement of human quality of life broadly. In developed societies, environmental sustainability has come to be seen as a pressing global issue worth curricular focus, as behaviors with regard to consumption of natural resources impact others around the world, as well as future generations. 68

A diversity of practices and views also marks this area of education, resulting in general ambiguity about overall aims and best means. Controversies over which attitudes of sustainability are most important to inculcate, and whether it is important to inculcate them, intertwine with debates over what crises are most pertinent and what skills and competencies students should develop. Measures are in place for standardizing sustainability knowledge in higher education worldwide, as well as for comparing the development of prosustainability attitudes. 69 However, some scholars argue that both emphases miss the point, and that education for sustainable development should first be about changing cultures to become more democratic, creative, and critical, developing interpersonal and prosocial capabilities first, as the challenges of environmental sustainability and global development are highly complex and dynamic. 70 Thus, as globalization remains contested in its impacts, challenges, and promise at local levels, so too does the best education that connects positively with globalization to enhance local and global life. In this rich and diverse field, as processes of convergence and hybridity of glocalization continue to occur, the promise of globalization and the significance of education in relation to it will no doubt remain lively areas of debate in the future, as globalization continues to impact communities in diverse ways.

Research Considerations

There is no shortage of normative and explanatory theories about globalization, each of which points to particular instances and evidence about domains and contexts of globalization. However, when it comes to understanding the interconnections of globalization and education, some consensus regarding best practices for research has emerged. In fields of comparative and international education and global studies in education, scholars are increasingly calling today for theories and empirical investigations that are oriented toward specificity, particularity, and locality, in contrast with the grand theories of globalization elaborated by political scholars. However, a challenge is that such scholarship should not be reduced artificially to one local level in such a way as to exclude understanding of international interactions, in what has been called in the research community “methodological nationalism.” 71 Such reductive localism or nationalism can arise particularly in comparative education research, as nation-states have been traditional units for comparative analysis, but are today recognized as being too diverse from one to the next to be presumed similar (while global processes impact them in disparate ways). 72 Thus, Rizvi has articulated global ethnography as a focused approach to the analysis of international educational projects that traces interconnections and interactions of local and global actors. 73 In comparative educational research, units of analysis must be critically pondered and selected, and it is also possible to make comparisons across levels within one context (for instance, from local educational interactions to higher-level policy-making processes in one society). 74

Qualitative and quantitative analyses can be undertaken to measure global educational achievements, values, policy statements, and more; yet researcher reflexivity and positionality, what is traditionally conceived of as research ethics, is increasingly seen as vital for researchers in this politically and ethically contentious field. Although quantitative research remains important for highlighting convergences in data in global educational studies, such research cannot tell us what we should do, as it does not systematically express peoples’ values and beliefs about the aims of education, or their experiences of globalization, and so on, particularly effectively. On the other hand, normative questions about how people’s values intersect with globalization and related educational processes can give an in-depth view of one location or case, but should be complemented by consideration of generalizable trends. 75

In either case, cultural assumptions can interfere or interact in problematic or unintentional ways with methodologies of data gathering and analysis, for instance, when questions or codes (related to race, ethnicity, or class, for example) are applied across diverse sites by researchers, who may not be very familiar and experienced across divergent cultural contexts. 76 Thus, beyond positionality, the use of collaborative research teams has become popular in global and comparative educational research, to ensure inevitable cultural and related differences across research domains are sufficiently addressed in the research process. 77 In this context, researchers must also contend with the challenges of collaborating across educational settings, as new methods of engaging, saving, and sharing data at distance through technology continue to unfold in response to ongoing challenges with data storage, data security, and privacy.

Among recent strands of educational research fueled by appreciation for globalization is the exploration of the global economy of knowledge. Such research may consider the practices and patterns of movement, collaboration, research production and publication, and authorship of researchers, and examine data from cultural, political, and economic perspectives, asking whose knowledge is regarded as valid and most prized, and what voices dominate in conversations and discourse around globalization and education, such as in classrooms studying global studies in education, or in leading research journals. 78 Related research emerging includes questions such as who produces knowledge, who is the subject of knowledge, and where are data gathered, as recurring historical patterns may appear to be reproduced in contemporary scholarship, wherein those from the global North are more active in investigating and elaborating knowledge in the field, while those from the global South appear most often as subjects of research. As globalization of education entails the globalization of knowledge itself, such inquiries can be directed to various sites and disciplines outside of education, in considering how communication, values, and knowledge are being dynamically revised today on a global scale through processes of globalization.

Research that focuses on globalization and education uses a wide array of approaches and methods, topics, and orientations, as well as diverse theoretical perspectives and normative assumptions. The foregoing sections have explored this general field, major debates, and topics; the relationships have been traced between globalization and education; and there have been brief comments on considerations for research. One key point of the analysis has been that the way globalization is conceived has implications for how its relationship with education is understood. This is important, for as is illustrated here, the ways of conceptualizing globalization are diverse, in terms of how the era of globalization is framed chronologically (as essential to the human condition, to modernity, or as a late 20th-century phenomena), what its chief characteristics are from cultural, political-economic, and technological views, and whether its impact on human life and history is seen as good or bad. A broad consideration of viewpoints has highlighted the emergence of a middle position within research literature: there is most certainly an intertwined meeting and movement of peoples, things, and ideas around the globe; and clearly, processes associated with globalization have good and bad aspects. However, these processes are uneven, and they can be seen to impact different communities in various ways, which are clearly not, on the whole, simply all good or all bad.

That the processes associated with globalization are interrelated with the history and future of education is undeniable. In many ways global convergence around educational policies, practices, and values can be observed in the early 21st century. Yet educational borrowing and transferral remain unstraightforward in practice, as educational and cultural differences across social contexts remain, while the ultimate ends of education (such as math competencies versus moral cultivation) are essentially contested. Thus, specificity is important to understand globalization in relation to education. As with globalization generally, globalization in education cannot be merely described as harmful or beneficial, but depends on one’s position in power relations, and on one’s values and priorities for local and global well-being.

Education and educators’ impact on globalization also remains an important area of research and theorization. Educators are no longer expected merely to react to globalization, they must purposefully interact with it, preparing students around the world to respond to globalization’s challenges. As cultural and political-economic considerations remain crucial in understanding major aspects of both globalization and education, positionality and research ethics and reflexivity remain important research concerns, to understand globalization not just as homogeneity or oppressive top-down features, but as complex and dynamic local, global, and transnational intersections of people, ideas, and goods, with unclear impacts in the future.

• Besley, T. , & Peters, M. A. (Eds.). (2012). Interculturalism: Education and dialogue . New York: Peter Lang.
• Bray, M. , Adamson, R. , & Mason, M. (2015). Comparative education research: Approaches and methods . Hong Kong: Comparative Education Research Centre, University of Hong Kong.
• Held, D. , & McGrew, A. (Eds.). (2000). The global transformation reader: An introduction to the globalization debate . Cambridge, U.K.: Polity.
• Ritzer, G. (Ed.). (2007). The Blackwell companion to globalization . Malden, MA: Blackwell.
• Rizvi, F. , & Lingard, R. (2010). Globalizing educational policy . London: Routledge.
• Robinson, W. I. (2003). Transnational conflicts: Central America, social change, and globalization . London: Verso.
• Sklair, L. (2002). Globalization: Capitalism and its alternatives . New York: Oxford University Press.
• Stiglitz, J. (2006). Making globalization work . New York: W. W. Norton.
• Walby, S. (2009). Globalization and inequalities . London: SAGE.
• Wallerstein, I. (1974). The modern world system . New York: Academic.

1. W. I. Robinson (2007), Theories of globalization, in G. Ritzer (Ed.), The Blackwell Companion to Globalization (pp. 125–143) (Malden, MA: Blackwell).

2. R. Robertson (1992), Globalization: Social theory and global culture (Thousand Oaks: SAGE, 1992).

3. Robertson, Globalization .

4. Robertson, Globalization.

5. For an historical example of how negative cultural comparison has interconnected with international political relations, see H. Kotef (2015), Little Chinese feet encased in iron shoes: Freedom, movement, gender, and empire in Western political thought, Political Theory, 43 , 334–355.

6. B. Anderson (1983), Imagined communities (London: Verso).

7. Anderson, Imagined communities.

8. M. Nussbaum (1996), For love of country? (Boston: Boston Press).

9. I. Wallerstein (1974), The modern world system (New York: Academic Press).

10. I. Wallerstein (2000), Globalization or the age of transition? International Sociology, 15 , 249–265.

11. Wallerstein, Globalization.

12. Robinson, Theories.

13. F. Rizvi and B. Lingard (2010), Globalizing educational policy (London: Routledge).

14. L. Sklair (2002), Globalization: Capitalism and its alternatives (New York: Oxford University Press).

15. W. I. Robinson (2003), Transnational conflicts: Central America, social change, and globalization (London: Verso)

16. Robinson, Theories.

17. M. Castells (1996), The rise of the network society (Oxford: Blackwell).

18. A. Giddens (1990), The consequences of modernity (Cambridge, U.K.: Polity), 64 ; see also D. Harvey (1990), The condition of post-modernity (London: Blackwell).

19. A. Appadurai (1997), Modernity at large: Cultural dimensions of globalization (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press).

20. See also D. Held , A. G. McGrew , D. Goldblatt , and J. Perraton (1999), Global transformations: Politics, economics, and culture (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press) ; M. Waters (1995), Globalization (London: Routledge).

21. Rizvi and Lingard, Globalizing.

22. M. P. Smith (2001), Transnational urbanism: Locating globalization (Oxford: Blackwell).

23. G. Ritzer (1993), The McDonaldization of society (Boston: Pine Forge).

24. G. Mathews (2011), Ghetto at the center of the world (Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press).

25. B. Barber (1995), Jihad versus McWorld (New York: Random House).

26. S. Huntington (1993), The clash of civilizations? Foreign Affairs, 72 (3), 22–49.

27. F. Fukuyama (1992), The end of history and the last man (London: Free Press).

28. U. Beck (1992), The risk society: Toward a new modernity (Cambridge, U.K.: Polity).

29. M. Hardt and A. Negri (2000), Empire (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press) ; Hardt and Negri (2004), Multitude: War and democracy in the age of empire (New York: Penguin).

30. W. Bello (2004), Deglobalization: Ideas for a new world economy (London: New York University Press) ; Bello (2013), Capitalism’s last stand? Deglobalization in the age of austerity (London: Zed Books).

31. C. Hines (2000), Localization: A global manifesto (New York: Routledge).

32. See D. Harvey (1989), The condition of post-modernity: An enquiry into the conditions of cultural change (Oxford: Blackwell).

33. A. Giddens (1990), The consequences of modernity (Cambridge, U.K.: Polity).

34. S. Burchill (2009), Liberalism, in S. Burchill , A. Linklater , R. Devetak , J. Donnelly , T. Nardin , M. Paterson , C. Reus-Smit , and J. True (Eds.) (pp. 57–85), Theories of international relations (New York: Palgrave Macmillan).

35. See, for instance, J. Stiglitz (2006), Making globalization work (New York: W. W. Norton).

36. D. Held and A. McGrew (Eds.) (2000), The global transformation reader: An introduction to the globalization debate (Cambridge, U.K.: Polity).

37. Rizvi and Lingard, Globalizing.

38. Rizvi and Lingard, Globalizing , 24.

39. T. Reagan (2000), Non-Western educational traditions: Alternative approaches to educational thought (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum). Of course, scholars such as Michael P. Smith would reject describing these processes as belonging to globalization, as people, nations, and communities played significant roles.

40. P. Freire (1972), Pedagogy of the oppressed (Victoria: Penguin).

41. B. Ashcroft , G. Griffiths , and H. Tiffin (Eds.) (1995), The post-colonial studies reader (London: Routledge).

42. R. E. Wanner (2015), UNESCO’s origins, achievements, problems and promise: An inside/outside perspective from the US (Hong Kong: Comparative Education Research Centre/University of Hong Kong).

43. M. Manzon (2011), Comparative education: The construction of a field (Hong Kong: Comparative Education Research Centre/University of Hong Kong).

44. S. Walby (2009), Globalization and inequalities (London: SAGE).

45. See for instance J. Stier (2004), Taking a critical stance toward internationalization ideologies in higher education: idealism, instrumentalism and educationalism, Globalisation, Societies and Education, 2 , 1–28.

46. Rizvi and Lingard, Globalizing .

47. Rizvi and Lingard, Globalizing .

48. Rizvi and Lingard, Globalizing .

49. Rizvi and Lingard, Globalizing .

50. See for instance M. S. Tucker and L. Darling-Hammond (2011), Surpassing Shanghai: An agenda for American education built on the world’s leading systems (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).

51. See for instance P. Sahlberg (2014), Finnish lessons 2.0: What can the world learn from educational change in Finland? (New York: Teachers College Press).

52. A. Darder (2015), Paulo Freire and the continuing struggle to decolonize education, in M. A Peters and T. Besley (Eds.), Paulo Freire: The global legacy (pp. 55–78) (New York: Peter Lang).

53. S. J. Shin (2009), Bilingualism in schools and society (London: Routledge) ; H. Norberg-Hodge (2009), Ancient futures: Lessons from Ladakh for a globalizing world (San Francisco: Sierra Club).

54. L. Jackson (2015), Challenges to the global concept of student-centered learning with special reference to the United Arab Emirates: “Never Fail a Nahayan,” Educational Philosophy and Theory, 47 , 760–773.

55. T. Besley (2012), Narratives of intercultural and international education: Aspirational values and economic imperatives, in T. Besley and M. A. Peters (Eds.), Interculturalism: Education and dialogue (pp. 87–112) (New York: Peter Lang).

56. W. J. Jacob and D. B. Holsinger (2008), Inequality in education: A critical analysis, in D. B. Holsinger and W. J. Jacob (Eds.), Inequality in education: Comparative and international perspectives (pp. 1–33) (Hong Kong: Comparative Education Research Centre/University of Hong Kong).

57. D. Hill , N. M. Greaves , and A. Maisuria (2008), Does capitalism inevitably increase inequality? in D. B. Holsinger and W. J. Jacob (Eds.), Inequality in education: Comparative and international perspectives (pp. 59–85) (Hong Kong: Comparative Education Research Centre/University of Hong Kong).

58. D. M. West (2013), Digital schools : How technology can transform education (Washington, DC: Brookings Institute Press) ; N. Burbules and T. Callister (2000), Watch IT: The risks and promises of technologies for education (Boulder, CO: Westview).

59. Burbules and Callister, Watch IT.

60. Stier, Critical Stance.

61. See for example, S. K. Gallwey and G. Wilgus (2014), Equitable partnerships for mutual learning or perpetuator of North-South power imbalances? Ireland–South Africa school links, Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 44 , 522–544.

62. M. C. Nussbaum (2001), Upheavals of thought: The intelligence of emotions (Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press).

63. K. Hytten (2009), Education for critical democracy and compassionate globalization, in R. Glass (Ed.), Philosophy of Education 2008 (pp. 330–332) (Urbana, IL: Philosophy of Education Society).

64. See for example, Report to the UNESCO of the International Commission on Education for the Twenty-First Century (1996), Learning: The treasure within (Paris: UNESCO) ; Asia Society (2015), A Rosetta Stone for noncognitive skills: Understanding, assessing, and enhancing noncognitive skills in primary and secondary education (New York: Asia Society).

65. See S. Y. Kang (2006), Identity-centered multicultural care theory: White, Black, and Korean caring, Educational Foundations, 20 (3–4), 35–49 ; L. Jackson (2016), Altruism, non-relational caring, and global citizenship education, in M. Moses (Ed.), Philosophy of Education 2014 (Urbana, IL: Philosophy of Education).

66. Jackson, Altruism.

67. L. Jackson (2016), Education for sustainable development: From environmental education to broader view, in E. Railean , G. Walker , A. Elçi , and L. Jackson (Eds.), Handbook of research on applied learning theory and design in modern education (pp. 41–64) (Hershey, PA: IGI Press).

68. Jackson, Education for Sustainable Development.

69. Jackson, Education for Sustainable Development.

70. P. Vare and W. Scott (2007), Learning for change: Exploring the relationship between education and sustainable development, Journal of Education for Sustainable Development, 1 , 191–198.

71. P. Kennedy (2011), Local lives and global transformations: Towards a world society (London: Palgrave).

72. M. Manzon (2015), Comparing places, in M. Bray , B. Adamson , and M. Mason (Eds.), Comparative education research: Approaches and methods (pp. 85–121) (Hong Kong: Comparative Education Research Centre/University of Hong Kong).

73. F. Rizvi (2009), Global mobility and the challenges of educational policy and research, in T. S. Popkewitz and F. Rizvi (Eds.), Globalization and the study of education (pp. 268–289) (Oxford: Blackwell).

74. Manzon, Comparing places.

75. G. P. Fairbrother , Qualitative and quantitative approaches to comparative education, in Bray , Adamson , and Mason (Eds.), Comparative education research (pp. 39–62).

76. L. Jackson (2015), Comparing race, class, and gender, in Bray , Adamson , and Mason (Eds.), Comparative education research (pp. 195–220).

77. M. Bray , B. Adamson , and M. Mason (2015), Different models, different emphases, different insights, in Bray , Adamson , and Mason (Eds.), Comparative education research , 421.

78. See, for instance, H. Tange and S. Miller (2015), Opening the mind? Geographies of knowledge and curricular practices, Higher Education , 1–15.

Related Articles

• Biographical Approaches in Education
• Decolonial Philosophy and Education
• Postcolonialism and Education
• The World Bank and Educational Assistance
• Teacher Unions
• European Studies and Research in Adult Learning and Education
• Critical Perspectives on the Political Economy of Higher Education in India and Globally
• Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) in Asia
• Commercialization in Education
• Globalization of Educational Knowledge and Research
• Indigenous School Education in Brazil
• Educational Policy and Development
• Critical English for Academic Purposes
• Cosmopolitanism and Education
• Homeschooling in the United States
• Constructions of Justice, Marginalization, and Belonging in Education
• Neoliberalism and Education
• Educational Attainment and Integration of Foreign Students in Spain

Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Education. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

date: 10 July 2024

• Cookie Policy
• Privacy Policy
• Legal Notice
• Accessibility
• [185.80.149.115]
• 185.80.149.115

Character limit 500 /500

What Is Global Education and Why Does It Matter?

• Open Access
• First Online: 08 April 2020

Cite this chapter

You have full access to this open access chapter

• Fernando M. Reimers 2  

Part of the book series: SpringerBriefs in Education ((BRIEFSEDUCAT))

27k Accesses

Global education are both practices guided by a set of purposes and approaches intentionally created to provide opportunities for students to develop global competencies, and the theories that explain and inform those practices and their effects. Global competencies encompass the knowledge, skills, and dispositions that help students develop, understand, and function in communities which are increasingly interdependent with other communities around the world, and that provide a foundation for lifelong learning of what they need to participate, at high levels of functioning, in environments in continuous flux because of increasing global change.

You have full access to this open access chapter,  Download chapter PDF

A competence encompasses more than knowledge and skills “It involves the ability to meet complex demands, by drawing on and mobilizing psychosocial resources (including skills and attitudes) in a particular context. For example, the ability to communicate effectively is a competency that may draw on an individual’s knowledge of language, practical IT skills, and attitudes towards those with whom he or she is communicating” (OECD 2005 , p. 4).

A quintessentially global topic is climate change. Global competency should enable people to understand climate change, to adapt to mitigate its impact, and hopefully to revert it. Climate Change Education, a subdomain of Education for Sustainable Development, is a modality of Global Education focused on preparing people to achieve more sustainable ways to relate to our habitat. It encompasses preparation to adopt practices that are known to be sustainable, for example slowing down population growth, consuming a diet with a smaller carbon footprint, or using renewable energies. These practices may be individual in the choices we make about our own consumption and lifestyle, or they may be collective, the result of choices we make as citizens when we participate in the democratic process in various levels of government or when we influence the behavior of corporations. Government policies are essential to slowing global warming, and they are subject to influence and preferences by citizens, educated to understand the scientific consensus on climate change and with the capacity to exercise influence as citizens.

But Climate Change Education encompasses also the development of the innovation skills necessary to slow down climate change, which requires advancing knowledge and inventing technologies that can help us transform our interactions with the environment, in a way reinvent our way of life. As a result, educating to mitigate climate change and for sustainability involves equipping people with the necessary skills for such advancement of knowledge and invention.

An example from the field of sanitation will illustrate the role of inventive skills in addressing climate change. In his efforts to improve sanitation in the developing world, Bill Gates concluded that the toilets and water treatment systems developed and in use in the early industrialized world were poor fits to developing countries because they were resource-intensive and generated excessive waste. This caused him to undertake projects to stimulate innovation in the design of next-generation toilets that could operate without sewer systems (Brueck 2019 ; D’Agostino 2018 ).

The competencies gained from global education should help students understand how the communities in which they live relate to other communities around the world, how they are affected from that interaction and affect others, how their lives are shaped by topics which are global in nature, such as climate change, or trade, or scientific cooperation, and to participate in forms of global action and cooperation within their spheres of influence in ways which contribute effectively to the various communities they are a part of, and in this way improving the world.

There are different intellectual traditions that influence how global education is defined and conceptualized. These perspectives draw on various intellectual traditions: globalism, nationalism, internationalism, transnationalism, cosmopolitanism, post-colonialism, and indigeneity. They are anchored in diverse core concepts: justice, equity, diversity, identity and belonging, and sustainable development. They include perspectives that accept the existing international social and economic order, along with others that are more critical (Davies et al. 2018 ).

Following a cosmopolitanist and critical perspective, in my own work developing global citizenship curriculum, I have adopted the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals as a guiding framework because they articulate a capacious vision of sustainability and because they tie global education as a theoretical field and practice to a set of concepts that are widely shared across many fields of human endeavor, including education, but extending also into public health, work and industry, poverty alleviation, environmental sustainability, poverty reduction. These seventeen goals are deeply rooted in multiple disciplines focused on human and social development. The Sustainable Development Goals pose also a challenge to the very notions of development and social progress, emphasizing the interdependence of inclusion, social justice, peace and environmental sustainability (Reimers et al. 2016 , 2017 ).

Global education encompasses the traditional disciplines in service of helping students understand the world in which they live: sciences, social sciences, and humanities. For example, to understand climate change it is necessary to understand the processes that explain how climate works, a subject of scientific study. A global education includes also opportunities for students to imagine and enact strategies to advance human well-being, which draws on the capacities of invention and ethical reasoning. This might include helping students to develop the curiosity to advance scientific understanding in a particular domain, or the desire to create products or services that advance well-being or solve problems, as with the previous example of reinventing toilets to address sanitation and advancing health.

Global education is not necessarily an additional curriculum domain, rather, it is a set of clear purposes which can help align the entire curriculum with real world questions, challenges, and opportunities. As such, global education is a way to help teachers as well as students understand the relationship between what is learned in school and the world outside the school. Global education encompasses also a series of approaches, pedagogies, curricula, and structures to support such instruction that is explicitly designed to help build the breadth of skills that can help students function in a deeply interdependent and increasingly globally integrated world. The Australian Curriculum Corporation defines it as follows:

Global education is defined as an approach to education which seeks to enable young people to participate in shaping a better shared future for the world through: Emphasising the unity and interdependence of human society, Developing a sense of self an appreciation of cultural diversity, Affirming social justice and human rights, peace building and actions for a sustainable future, Emphasising developing relationships with our global neighbours, Promoting open-mindedness and a predisposition to take action for change. (Curriculum Corporation 2008 , p. 2)

Global education includes multiple specific domains, such as environmental education and education for sustainability, understanding global affairs, understanding the process of globalization and of global interdependence, developing intercultural competency, fostering civic engagement, human rights, and peace education. Sciences and humanities are the disciplinary foundations of global education, for there is no way to understand the world without the knowledge, skills, and dispositions that result from learning to think as scientists do or reason as humanists can do.

For example, in order to understand climate change, students need to know not just the scientific consensus on the causes of climate change, but the underlying processes that are the major drivers of climate change producing significant release of carbon dioxide and other bases into the atmosphere which trap heat. Scientists have identified boundaries for ten systems within which humans and other species can live: freshwater use, land use, phosphorous pollution, ocean acidification, climate change, ozone depletion, nitrogen pollution, biodiversity loss, aerosol air, and chemical pollution. These systems are: ocean acidification, climate change, ozone depletion, nitrogen pollution, and biodiversity loss. Only after they understand those systems will students be able to comprehend the metrics which demonstrate the nature and causes of climate change. For eight of those system metrics for which we have data to compare pre-industrial revolution levels to current levels, five of them exceed the boundaries representing high risk that life is not sustainable. Furthermore, the remaining three metrics: freshwater use, land use, and phosphorous pollution, have changed significantly, in the direction of the increasing risk boundary. Only two of the eight metrics (ocean acidification and ozone depletion) have current values that are lower than the values before the industrial revolution (UNESCO 2017 , p. 20). Only once they can understand those systems and metrics, will students be able to understand the scientific consensus which is that the main causes of those changes are human–environmental interactions, resulting from overpopulation, modern lifestyles and individual behavior (NASA 2020 ). But, as explained earlier, in order to contribute to the mitigation of climate change, students will need more than the scientific understanding of how climate works. They will need the capacity for systemic thinking, and the capacity to identify various criteria, value-based systems, to choose among alternatives and weigh tradeoffs among alternatives, so they can evaluate the costs and benefits involved in reducing population growth, or consumption, or in building circular economies with industries located closer to cities as a way to reduce transportation costs.

An effective program of global education is not the additive result of a series of isolated experiences in various curriculum silos, but the result of coherent and integrated learning opportunities that can help students understand the relationship between what they learn in various grades and subjects in service of understanding the world and of being able to act to improve it. As such, a global education helps students think about complexity and understand the systems which undergird global issues and global interdependence.

The Asia Society and the OECD define global competence as follows:

Both OECD and the Center for Global Education have identified four key aspects of global competence. Globally competent youth: (1) investigate the world beyond their immediate environment by examining issues of local, global, and cultural significance; (2) recognize, understand, and appreciate the perspectives and world views of others; (3) communicate ideas effectively with diverse audiences by engaging in open, appropriate, and effective interactions across cultures; and (4) take action for collective well-being and sustainable development both locally and globally. (OECD and Asia Society 2018 , p. 12)

A global education, in short, helps prepare students to live so that “nothing human is foreign to them” to quote the playwright Terence who expressed this cosmopolitan aspiration two thousand years ago, a quote that so captivated the sixteenth-century philosopher and humanist Michel de Montaigne that he engraved it in one of the beams of his study. Montaigne’s focus on understanding human nature influenced many subsequent philosophers and scientists, including Rousseau, Bacon, Pascal, Descartes, and Emerson. He translated his humanist and cosmopolitan vision into ideas about how children should be educated. He argued that the goal of education was to prepare students for life and that this required experiential learning and personalization (Montaigne 1575 ).

In the chapters that follow, I explain each of these five perspectives in greater detail, illustrating how they can help approach the design and implementation of a program of global education.

Brueck, H. (2019). A $350 toilet powered by worms may be the ingenious future of sanitation that Bill Gates has been dreaming about. Business Insider .

Google Scholar  

Curriculum Corporation. (2008). Global perspectives: A framework for global education in Australian Schools . Carlton South, VC: Curriculum Corporation.

D’Agostino, R. (2018). How does Bill Gates’s ingenious, waterless, life-saving toilet work? Popular Mechanics. https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/health/a24747871/bill-gates-life-saving-toilet/ .

Davies, I., Ho, L. C., Kiwan, D., Peck, C. L., Peterson, A., Sant, E., et al. (Eds.). (2018). The Palgrave handbook of global citizenship and education . London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

Montaigne, M. (1575). On the education of children. http://essays.quotidiana.org/montaigne/education_of_children/ .

NASA. (2020). Global climate change. Vital signs of the planet . Retrieved from January 14, 2020, from https://climate.nasa.gov/ .

OECD. (2005). Definition and selection of key competencies: Executive summary . Paris: OECD. https://www.oecd.org/pisa/35070367.pdf .

OECD and Asia Society. (2018). Teaching for global competence in a rapidly changing world. Paris: OECD. https://asiasociety.org/sites/default/files/inline-files/teaching-for-global-competence-in-a-rapidly-changing-world-edu.pdf .

Reimers, F., Chopra, V., Chung, C., Higdon, J., & O’Donnell, E. B. (2016). Empowering global citizens . Charleston, SC: CreateSpace.

Reimers, F., et al. (2017). Empowering students to improve the world in sixty lessons . Charleston, SC: CreateSpace.

UNESCO. (2017). Education for people and planet (Global education monitoring report). Paris: UNESCO.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Harvard Graduate School Of Education, Cambridge, MA, USA

Fernando M. Reimers

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Fernando M. Reimers .

Rights and permissions

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Reimers, F.M. (2020). What Is Global Education and Why Does It Matter?. In: Educating Students to Improve the World. SpringerBriefs in Education. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-3887-2_2

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-3887-2_2

Published : 08 April 2020

Publisher Name : Springer, Singapore

Print ISBN : 978-981-15-3886-5

Online ISBN : 978-981-15-3887-2

eBook Packages : Education Education (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Global Education

By: Hannah Ritchie , Veronika Samborska , Natasha Ahuja , Esteban Ortiz-Ospina and Max Roser

A good education offers individuals the opportunity to lead richer, more interesting lives. At a societal level, it creates opportunities for humanity to solve its pressing problems.

The world has gone through a dramatic transition over the last few centuries, from one where very few had any basic education to one where most people do. This is not only reflected in the inputs to education – enrollment and attendance – but also in outcomes, where literacy rates have greatly improved.

Getting children into school is also not enough. What they learn matters. There are large differences in educational outcomes : in low-income countries, most children cannot read by the end of primary school. These inequalities in education exacerbate poverty and existing inequalities in global incomes .

On this page, you can find all of our writing and data on global education.

Key insights on Global Education

The world has made substantial progress in increasing basic levels of education.

Access to education is now seen as a fundamental right – in many cases, it’s the government’s duty to provide it.

But formal education is a very recent phenomenon. In the chart, we see the share of the adult population – those older than 15 – that has received some basic education and those who haven’t.

In the early 1800s, fewer than 1 in 5 adults had some basic education. Education was a luxury; in all places, it was only available to a small elite.

But you can see that this share has grown dramatically, such that this ratio is now reversed. Less than 1 in 5 adults has not received any formal education.

This is reflected in literacy data , too: 200 years ago, very few could read and write. Now most adults have basic literacy skills.

What you should know about this data

• Basic education is defined as receiving some kind of formal primary, secondary, or tertiary (post-secondary) education.
• This indicator does not tell us how long a person received formal education. They could have received a full program of schooling, or may only have been in attendance for a short period. To account for such differences, researchers measure the mean years of schooling or the expected years of schooling .

Despite being in school, many children learn very little

International statistics often focus on attendance as the marker of educational progress.

However, being in school does not guarantee that a child receives high-quality education. In fact, in many countries, the data shows that children learn very little.

Just half – 48% – of the world’s children can read with comprehension by the end of primary school. It’s based on data collected over a 9-year period, with 2016 as the average year of collection.

This is shown in the chart, where we plot averages across countries with different income levels. 1

The situation in low-income countries is incredibly worrying, with 90% of children unable to read by that age.

This can be improved – even among high-income countries. The best-performing countries have rates as low as 2%. That’s more than four times lower than the average across high-income countries.

Making sure that every child gets to go to school is essential. But the world also needs to focus on what children learn once they’re in the classroom.

Millions of children learn only very little. How can the world provide a better education to the next generation?

Research suggests that many children – especially in the world’s poorest countries – learn only very little in school. What can we do to improve this?

• This data does not capture total literacy over someone’s lifetime. Many children will learn to read eventually, even if they cannot read by the end of primary school. However, this means they are in a constant state of “catching up” and will leave formal education far behind where they could be.

Children across the world receive very different amounts of quality learning

There are still significant inequalities in the amount of education children get across the world.

This can be measured as the total number of years that children spend in school. However, researchers can also adjust for the quality of education to estimate how many years of quality learning they receive. This is done using an indicator called “learning-adjusted years of schooling”.

On the map, you see vast differences across the world.

In many of the world’s poorest countries, children receive less than three years of learning-adjusted schooling. In most rich countries, this is more than 10 years.

Across most countries in South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa – where the largest share of children live – the average years of quality schooling are less than 7.

• Learning-adjusted years of schooling merge the quantity and quality of education into one metric, accounting for the fact that similar durations of schooling can yield different learning outcomes.
• Learning-adjusted years is computed by adjusting the expected years of school based on the quality of learning, as measured by the harmonized test scores from various international student achievement testing programs. The adjustment involves multiplying the expected years of school by the ratio of the most recent harmonized test score to 625. Here, 625 signifies advanced attainment on the TIMSS (Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study) test, with 300 representing minimal attainment. These scores are measured in TIMSS-equivalent units.

Hundreds of millions of children worldwide do not go to school

While most children worldwide get the opportunity to go to school, hundreds of millions still don’t.

In the chart, we see the number of children who aren’t in school across primary and secondary education.

This number was around 244 million in 2023.

Many children who attend primary school drop out and do not attend secondary school. That means many more children or adolescents are missing from secondary school than primary education.

Access to basic education: almost 60 million children of primary school age are not in school

The world has made a lot of progress in recent generations, but millions of children are still not in school.

The gender gap in school attendance has closed across most of the world

Globally, until recently, boys were more likely to attend school than girls. The world has focused on closing this gap to ensure every child gets the opportunity to go to school.

Today, these gender gaps have largely disappeared. In the chart, we see the difference in the global enrollment rates for primary, secondary, and tertiary (post-secondary) education. The share of children who complete primary school is also shown.

We see these lines converging over time, and recently they met: rates between boys and girls are the same.

For tertiary education, young women are now more likely than young men to be enrolled.

While the differences are small globally, there are some countries where the differences are still large: girls in Afghanistan, for example, are much less likely to go to school than boys.

Research & Writing

Talent is everywhere, opportunity is not. We are all losing out because of this.

Access to basic education: almost 60 million children of primary school age are not in school, interactive charts on global education.

This data comes from a paper by João Pedro Azevedo et al.

João Pedro Azevedo, Diana Goldemberg, Silvia Montoya, Reema Nayar, Halsey Rogers, Jaime Saavedra, Brian William Stacy (2021) – “ Will Every Child Be Able to Read by 2030? Why Eliminating Learning Poverty Will Be Harder Than You Think, and What to Do About It .” World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 9588, March 2021.

Cite this work

Our articles and data visualizations rely on work from many different people and organizations. When citing this topic page, please also cite the underlying data sources. This topic page can be cited as:

BibTeX citation

Reuse this work freely

All visualizations, data, and code produced by Our World in Data are completely open access under the Creative Commons BY license . You have the permission to use, distribute, and reproduce these in any medium, provided the source and authors are credited.

The data produced by third parties and made available by Our World in Data is subject to the license terms from the original third-party authors. We will always indicate the original source of the data in our documentation, so you should always check the license of any such third-party data before use and redistribution.

All of our charts can be embedded in any site.

Our World in Data is free and accessible for everyone.

Help us do this work by making a donation.

• Games & Quizzes
• History & Society
• Science & Tech
• Biographies
• Animals & Nature
• Geography & Travel
• Arts & Culture
• On This Day
• One Good Fact
• New Articles
• Lifestyles & Social Issues
• Philosophy & Religion
• Politics, Law & Government
• World History
• Health & Medicine
• Browse Biographies
• Birds, Reptiles & Other Vertebrates
• Bugs, Mollusks & Other Invertebrates
• Environment
• Fossils & Geologic Time
• Entertainment & Pop Culture
• Sports & Recreation
• Visual Arts
• Demystified
• Image Galleries
• Infographics
• Top Questions
• Britannica Kids
• Saving Earth
• Space Next 50
• Student Center
• Introduction & Top Questions
• Prehistoric and primitive cultures
• Mesopotamia
• North China
• The Hindu tradition
• The introduction of Buddhist influences
• Classical India
• Indian influences on Asia
• Xi (Western) Zhou (1046–771 bce )
• Dong (Eastern) Zhou (770–256 bce )
• Qin autocracy (221–206 bce )
• Scholarship under the Han (206 bce –220 ce )
• Introduction of Buddhism
• Ancient Hebrews
• Education of youth
• Higher education
• The institutions
• Physical education
• The primary school
• Secondary education
• Early Roman education
• Roman modifications
• Education in the later Roman Empire
• Ancient Persia
• Elementary education
• Professional education
• Early Russian education: Kiev and Muscovy
• Influences on Muslim education and culture
• Aims and purposes of Muslim education
• Organization of education
• Major periods of Muslim education and learning
• Influence of Islamic learning on the West
• From the beginnings to the 4th century
• From the 5th to the 8th century
• The Irish and English revivals
• The cultural revival under Charlemagne and his successors
• Influences of the Carolingian renaissance abroad
• Education of the laity in the 9th and 10th centuries
• Monastic schools
• Urban schools
• New curricula and philosophies
• Thomist philosophy
• The Italian universities
• The French universities
• The English universities
• Universities elsewhere in Europe
• General characteristics of medieval universities
• Lay education and the lower schools
• The foundations of Muslim education
• The Mughal period
• The Tang dynasty (618–907 ce )
• The Song (960–1279)
• The Mongol period (1206–1368)
• The Ming period (1368–1644)
• The Manchu period (1644–1911/12)
• The ancient period to the 12th century
• Education of the warriors
• Education in the Tokugawa era
• Effect of early Western contacts
• The Muslim influence
• The secular influence
• Early influences
• Emergence of the new gymnasium
• Nonscholastic traditions
• Dutch humanism
• Juan Luis Vives
• The early English humanists
• Luther and the German Reformation
• The English Reformation
• The French Reformation
• The Calvinist Reformation
• The Roman Catholic Counter-Reformation
• The legacy of the Reformation
• The new scientism and rationalism
• The Protestant demand for universal elementary education
• The pedagogy of Ratke
• The pedagogy of Comenius
• The schools of Gotha
• Courtly education
• The teaching congregations
• Female education
• The Puritan reformers
• Royalist education
• The academies
• John Locke’s empiricism and education as conduct
• Giambattista Vico, critic of Cartesianism
• The condition of the schools and universities
• August Hermann Francke
• Johann Julius Hecker
• The Sensationists
• The Rousseauists
• National education under enlightened rulers
• Spanish and Portuguese America
• French Québec
• New England
• The new academies
• The middle colonies
• The Southern colonies
• Newfoundland and the Maritime Provinces.
• The social and historical setting
• The pedagogy of Pestalozzi
• The influence of Pestalozzi
• The pedagogy of Froebel
• The kindergarten movement
• The psychology and pedagogy of Herbart
• The Herbartians
• Other German theorists
• French theorists
• Spencer’s scientism
• Humboldt’s reforms
• Developments after 1815
• Girls’ schools
• The new German universities
• Development of state education
• Elementary Education Act
• Secondary and higher education
• The educational awakening
• Education for females
• New Zealand
• Education under the East India Company
• Indian universities
• The Meiji Restoration and the assimilation of Western civilization
• Establishment of a national system of education
• The conservative reaction
• Establishment of nationalistic education systems
• Promotion of industrial education
• Social and historical background
• Influence of psychology and other fields on education
• Traditional movements
• Progressive education
• Child-centred education
• Scientific-realist education
• Social-reconstructionist education
• Major trends and problems
• Early 19th to early 20th century
• Education Act of 1944
• The comprehensive movement
• Further education
• Imperial Germany
• Weimar Republic
• Nazi Germany
• Changes after World War II
• The Third Republic
• The Netherlands
• Switzerland
• Expansion of American education
• Curriculum reforms
• Federal involvement in local education
• Changes in higher education
• Professional organizations
• Canadian educational reforms
• The administration of public education
• Before 1917
• The Stalinist years, 1931–53
• The Khrushchev reforms
• From Brezhnev to Gorbachev
• Perestroika and education
• The modernization movement
• Education in the republic
• Education under the Nationalist government
• Education under communism
• Post-Mao education
• Communism and the intellectuals
• Education at the beginning of the century
• Education to 1940
• Education changes during World War II
• Education after World War II
• Pre-independence period
• The postindependence period in India
• The postindependence period in Pakistan
• The postindependence period in Bangladesh
• The postindependence period in Sri Lanka
• South Africa
• General influences and policies of the colonial powers
• Education in Portuguese colonies and former colonies
• German educational policy in Africa
• Education in British colonies and former colonies
• Education in French colonies and former colonies
• Education in Belgian colonies and former colonies
• Problems and tasks of African education in the late 20th century
• Colonialism and its consequences
• The second half of the 20th century
• The Islamic revival
• Migration and the brain drain
• The heritage of independence
• Administration
• Primary education and literacy
• Reform trends
• Malaysia and Singapore
• Philippines

Education and social cohesion

Education and social conflict, education and personal growth, education and civil society.

• Education and economic development
• Primary-level school enrollments
• Secondary-level school enrollments
• Tertiary-level school enrollments
• Other developments in formal education
• Literacy as a measure of success
• Access to education
• Implications for socioeconomic status
• Social consequences of education in developing countries
• The role of the state
• Social and family interaction
• Alternative forms of education

• What was education like in ancient Athens?
• How does social class affect education attainment?
• When did education become compulsory?
• What are alternative forms of education?
• Do school vouchers offer students access to better education?

Global trends in education

Our editors will review what you’ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article.

• Academia - Return on Education Using the Concept of Opportunity Cost
• National Geographic - Geography
• World History Encyclopedia - Education in the Elizabethan Era
• Table Of Contents

The development and growth of national education systems

One of the most significant phenomena of the 20th century was the dramatic expansion and extension of public (i.e., government-sponsored) education systems around the world—the number of schools grew, as did the number of children attending them. Similarly, the subjects taught in schools broadened from the basics of mathematics and language to include sciences and the arts. Various explanations have been given for the substantial increase in numbers of youths as well as adults attending government-sponsored schools; social scientists tend to categorize the reasons for these enrollment increases as products of either conflict or consensus in the process of social change . In most cases these perspectives are rooted in theories of social science that were formulated in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

Recent News

One major school of thought is represented in the work of French sociologist Émile Durkheim , who explained social phenomena from a consensus perspective. According to him, the achievement of social cohesion—exemplified in Europe’s large-scale national societies as they experienced industrialization , urbanization , and the secularization of governing bodies—required a universalistic agency capable of transmitting core values to the populace. These values included a common history that contributed to cultural continuity , social rules that instilled moral discipline and a sense of responsibility for all members of the society, and occupational skills that would meet the society’s complex and dynamic needs. Durkheim recognized that public schooling and teachers—as agents of a larger, moral society—served these necessary functions. As he observed in The Rules of Sociological Method (1895), “Education sets out precisely with the object of creating a social being.”

Durkheim’s thoughts, expressed near the turn of the 20th century, were reflected in the policies of newly sovereign states in the post-World War II period. Upon achieving their independence, governments throughout Africa and Asia quickly established systems of public instruction that sought to help achieve a sense of national identity in societies historically divided by tribal, ethnic, linguistic, religious, and geographic differences.

The German political theorist and revolutionary Karl Marx viewed public schooling as a form of ideological control imposed by dominant groups. This perspective saw education not as building social cohesion but as reproducing a division of labour or enabling various status groups to gain control of organizations and to influence the distribution of valued resources. The German sociologist Max Weber regarded educational credentials as one such resource, in that credentials function as a form of “cultural capital” that can generally preserve the status quo while granting social mobility to select members of society.

The American philosopher John Dewey believed that education should mean the total development of the child . On the basis of the observations he made at the University of Chicago Laboratory Schools —the experimental elementary schools that he founded in 1896—Dewey developed revolutionary educational theories that sparked the progressive education movement in the United States . As he propounded in The School and Society (1899) and The Child and the Curriculum (1902), education must be tied to experience, not abstract thought, and must be built upon the interests and developmental needs of the child. He argued for a student-centred, not subject-centred, curriculum and stressed the teaching of critical thought over rote memorization.

Later, in Experience and Education (1938), he criticized those of his followers who took his theories too far by disregarding organized subject matter in favour of vocational training or mere activity for their students. If prudently applied, progressive education could, Dewey believed, “shape the experiences of the young so that instead of reproducing current habits, better habits shall be formed, and thus the future adult society be an improvement on their own.” Concurrent pedagogies appeared in European institutions such as Ovide Decroly ’s École de l’Ermitage (the Hermitage School), which envisioned students utilizing the classroom as a workshop, and Maria Montessori ’s Casa dei Bambini (“Children’s House”), which incorporated experiential and tactile learning methods through students’ use of “didactic materials.”

Toward the end of the 20th century, comprehensive theories—such as those represented by the consensus and conflict models—were increasingly viewed as oversimplifications of social processes and, in many quarters, gave way to more particularized interpretations. One such perspective viewed educational expansion and extension less as a function of national interest and more as a by-product of religious, economic, political, and cultural changes that had occurred across most of Europe. Especially in the wake of the Enlightenment , an emphasis on the glorification of God was joined by the growing celebration of human progress (ultimately defined as economic growth ), while concerns for the salvation of the soul were augmented by the cultivation of individual potential. As nation-states with centralized governments extended citizenship rights in the 18th century, state sponsorship of schools began to supersede the church-supported instruction that had become the norm in the 16th and 17th centuries ( see Education, history of: Central European theories and practices ). According to such scholars as John Meyer and Michael Hannan in National Development and the World System: Educational, Economic, and Political Change, 1950–1970 (1979), formal systems of education not only represent the means by which nation-states have modernized and prospered economically but are also the surest route to enhancing the talents of individuals. As a requirement for all children and youths between certain ages and as an institution regulated by the state, schooling also became the primary agency for creating citizens with equal responsibilities and rights.

These values emerged in education systems throughout the world, especially in the late 20th century as education professionals promoted them in developed and less-developed countries alike. As such, schools effectively carried modernity into many parts of the world, where it was met with varying degrees of resistance and acceptance. Teachers, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and government agencies contributed, for example, to standardization in the shape and style of the classroom, types of curricula, and goals for school enrollments. In the first half of the 20th century, schools in most industrialized countries came to exhibit similar characteristics—that is, schools could be identified as schools. By the second half of the 20th century, these traits had become prominent in most schools around the world.

In order to continue enjoying our site, we ask that you confirm your identity as a human. Thank you very much for your cooperation.

Primary Source

Educating Global Citizens

• Socially Connected, Physically Distanced
• Our Mission

What is Global Education?

• African American History is American History
• Advance Anti-racist Education with Primary Source
• Board of Directors
• Advisory & Honorary Boards

A global education is one that incorporates learning about the cultures, geographies, histories, and current issues of all the world’s regions. It emphasizes the interconnectedness and diversity of peoples and histories. Global education develops students’ skills to engage with their global peers and highlights actions students can take as citizens of the world. It is a lens that can be applied to all disciplines and all grade levels as well as the broader school community.

Global learning is essential in the 21st century as barriers between nations and people continue to fade. From the information we consume to the business we conduct to the people we meet, our lives are becoming ever more global. The diversity of our communities reflects this reality as well. It follows that students need to become more informed and compassionate citizens, and teachers are critical to making this happen.

What can you do?

All educators have a responsibility to create a globally inclusive environment for students. Schools, for example, can promote a more nuanced understanding of the multiple perspectives held by the world’s people. A global classroom can enable students to connect with other ideas and cultures as they navigate and evaluate a variety of information. Teachers of all disciplines can create meaningful learning opportunities that explore cross-cultural perspectives, draw from international examples, and encourage analytical thinking about global issues. Together, these global learning experiences prepare students to engage the larger world with greater confidence, thoughtfulness, and empathy.

All students deserve a high-quality global education. Working together with educators and schools, Primary Source seeks to make this possible.

Can you imagine a world without global collaboration? Neither can we.

• SDG4 coordination
• Global Education Monitoring Report
• Global Coalition for Education
• UNESCO Chairs and UNITWIN Networks
• Global network of technical and vocational education and training institutions
• Global network of learning cities
• Right to education
• Education in emergencies
• Inclusion in education
• Early childhood care and education
• Higher education
• Literacy and adult learning
• Technical and vocational education and training
• Education and gender equality
• Girls’ and women’s education in science and technology
• Teacher education
• Education policies and strategies
• Education management, monitoring and evaluation
• Assessment for improved learning outcomes
• Curriculum development
• Global citizenship education
• Education about the Holocaust and genocide
• Countering hate speech
• Education for sustainable development
• Health and education
• Digital learning and transformation of education
• Futures of Education
• All UNESCO news on education
• Education stories
• Subscribe to the Education monthly newsletter
• Publications
• Databases and tools
• National education profiles

About education

UNESCO believes that education is a human right for all throughout life and that access must be matched by quality. The Organization is the only United Nations agency with a mandate to cover all aspects of education. It has been entrusted to lead the Global Education 2030 Agenda through  Sustainable Development Goal 4 . The roadmap to achieve this is the  Education 2030 Framework for Action  (FFA).

UNESCO provides global and regional leadership in education, strengthens education systems worldwide and responds to contemporary global challenges through education with gender equality an underlying principle.

Its work encompasses educational development from pre-school to higher education and beyond. Themes include global citizenship and sustainable development, human rights and gender equality, health and HIV and AIDS, as well as technical and vocational skills development.

How we work

UNESCO leads the coordination and monitoring of the  Global Education 2030 Agenda  through Sustainable Development Goal 4  and using the  Education 2030 Framework for Action  as a roadmap.

The  UNESCO Education Strategy 2014-2021  has three strategic objectives:

The education sector is shifting and evolving towards a more explicit, active commitment to addressing gender-related barriers within and beyond the education system. This shift is being accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic with more NGOs, local governments as well as national governments recognizing the role education has in promoting gender-transformative change. Many are responding to this shift with innovations that aim to address the persistent challenges faced by girls and women in education. By highlighting these key practices through the Prize, we can contribute to inspiring more action for girls and women.

We speak about the importance of gender-transformative change both in and beyond education. Can you define what this means for you?

Gender-transformative education aims not only to respond to gender disparities within the education system but also to harness the full potential of education to transform attitudes, practices and discriminatory gender norms. Education can support critical changes for gender equality, such as promoting women’s leadership, preventing gender-based violence, and catalyzing boys' and men's engagement to embrace gender equality.

I have been very impressed by the capacity shown by many organizations and individuals nominated to adapt to the COVID-19 pandemic to ensure they could maintain the delivery of their programmes. We know that fewer girls and women have access to and use the internet, and the digital gender gap is growing, particularly in developing countries. Many found new ways of delivering educational content and finding solutions to conduct fully online or blended approaches to learning, often in low-resource settings where access to the internet is extremely limited.  

Related items

• SDG: SDG 4 - Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all

• UK Universities
• Search by Curriculum
• Search by Location

Start typing and press Enter to search

The Definition of Global Education

Global or international education is a term that is frequently bandied about these days, but what does it mean exactly? People most commonly think it refers to when a student travels abroad for education, but it also includes when institutions set up branch campuses abroad. At its core though, global education alludes to a set of ideas about education that transcends national borders. It is when students and teachers travel across the globe in pursuit of learning or educating.

Global education is a form of and approach to education that prepares students for this rapidly interconnected new world. It is believed that being globally educated will allow students the opportunity to not only gain a prestigious education but also a uniquely multifaceted academic experience. Through exposure to diverse systems, perspectives and cultures, globally educated students understand the inextricable links between the lives of individuals across the world. They also understand the way each nation’s economic, cultural, political and environmental changes influence one another. Hence, globally educated students possess the skills, attitudes and values needed to thrive in this new rapidly changing world.

Historically, global education began in the 1190s with Emo of Friesland, a Dutch scholar who attended Oxford University. Following that, global education started gaining traction with France, Britain and Germany exchanging scholars but it was still just reserved for the aristocratic elite. However, it expanded further when the Dutch, French and British universities established branch campuses in their colonised countries during the colonial period. The modern version of global education started in the early 20th century when the revolution of transportation allowed students to cross oceans and nations easily. Later, institutions started expanding operations beyond their home nation as well. For example, in the 1950s, Johns Hopkins University opened a branch campus in Italy, which is now considered the oldest established branch campus still in operation.

Currently, more and more institutions are both inviting international students to join them and establishing branch campuses worldwide. The building of official offshore campuses by highly illustrious institutions in particular has been increasing in recent years. For example, Yale collaborated with National University of Singapore to establish Yale-NUS, the first liberal arts college in Singapore. The institutions see this as an excellent opportunity to expand their prestige, increase connections and create a solid base for full-scale and rapid development. Students meanwhile reap the benefit of enjoying the same distinguished quality of teaching and learning as and obtaining an identical degree from these esteemed institutions.

Governments are encouraging this exchange of students and faculty for the diplomatic and educational benefits. Malaysia is now experiencing a boom of prestigious institutions from the UK, USA, Australia and even China establishing official branch campuses in the country. It is a reflection of Malaysia’s desire and efforts to become a global education hub and a more globalised nation.

Global education will continue evolving and expanding as we become more and more interconnected and transform into a harmonious globalised society. The next generation deserves to be a part of this phenomenon and utilise the knowledge they’ve gathered to take the world to new heights.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

You may also like

The 7 Great Advantages of Boarding School

Educating the Next Generation of Environmental Leaders

Embark on a prestigious British degree with the triple-accredited Henley Business School

A Comparative Analysis of Medical Education Systems: United Kingdom vs. United States

Star Special: Engineering A Bright Future

Shaping the Next Generation of Medical Researchers

Explore MSM Network

Why is global education important in the 21st century and beyond?

Why global education is important in 21st century.

Global education is now more important than ever. The world is facing shared problems such as the COVID19 pandemic and climate change. Higher education institutions have a big role in: 

• Ensuring students will develop a global mindset through global education.
• Providing students with accessible education.  

Education Can Lead to Better Opportunities

According to Nelson Mandela , “Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world.” Indeed, education has the power to improve a person’s chance to live a better life as well as contribute to building a better world. 

In 2015, the United Nations (UN) launched 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) that can help protect the planet and improve people’s lives. Number four on the list of SDGs was Quality Education . According to the UN , education is a key to escape poverty.  Global education  both as an approach to teaching and as a network or system of educational institutions can equip students with skills to thrive and gain success in their chosen careers in an ever-changing world.

What Is Global Education and Why Is It Important to Students Wherever They Are in the World?

The most famous line from 17th century poet, John Donne , “no man is an island” still rings true today. According to ASCD, an international nonprofit organization, a global education approach enables students to:

• develop an appreciation for the world
• opens student’s eyes to the reality that they are part of a bigger system and that they can be an active actor in it
• exposes students to different cultures and disciplines

Furthermore, a global education approach makes learning active, fun and much engaging. For example, an economics class in the United States can be made interesting through a global approach. Teachers can give students an assignment to find out where their favorite coffee beans come from. Students may be surprised to find out that the beans they brew at home came from Brazil. 

This discovery may spark an interest with the student to study Brazil, its culture, politics, or tourist destinations. The student may also be interested to learn about other top coffee-producing countries such as Colombia and Ethiopia. 

On the other hand, through a global education approach, a student in Brazil may be interested to study the reason why America is one of their top coffee importers. 

Aside from being an approach, global education also refers to the network or system of educational institutions across the world. The global educational system has developed cross border and even  transnational partnerships  to facilitate learning. Through internet connectivity, students can now “study abroad” while at the comfort of their home through flexible pathway options. 

Global Education Gives Students a Better Understanding of the World

Global education as a teaching approach broadens a student’s perspective and helps them see the bigger picture. The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) said that learners can become active supporters of social issues if they were taught about it at any age. 

UNESCO identified inequality, poverty and human rights violations as issues that threaten the world’s peace and stability. UNESCO campaigns for global citizenship education to help close the gap.  

Global Education Encourages Students to Take on Challenges Faced by Other Countries

Global education gives students the opportunity to have an active participation in making the world a better place. According to UNESCO, technology progressed in making the world interconnected but inequality, poverty and human rights violations remain. 

Students taught through a global education approach and/ or through a global education system who consider themselves as global citizens are equipped with the mindset to help address social issues and will choose careers to find solutions for social issues. 

Differences in Global Education - 20th Century Vs 21st Century

According to 21st Century Schools, an educational consulting firm, the learning environment is divided into three areas, the Physical, Emotional and Academic environments. The most recognizable difference between the physical learning environment of the 21st century and the 20th century education is online learning. 

The importance of online learning has been highlighted during the wake of COVID-19. Delivery of classes has shifted to online. As for the emotional learning environment, 20th century education lacked the global education approach. 

The 20th century learning environment was much more focused on giving a standard cookie-cutter approach while the 21st century learning environment gives real world problems that makes it relatable to students. Lastly, the academic environment in the 21st century is focused on providing students with a mindset that can further stimulate their learning appetite rather than passive learning where students are taught just by providing facts and figures. 

The world will face more challenges in the future and by having a global mindset, one can find solutions for it. Having access to global education in the 21st century should be every student’s goal. Education is not only a tool to improve one’s self but also the world. 

• The Current Trends in Global Education Market

Works Cited:

4 Quality Education. (n.d.). Sustainable Development Goals. Retrieved from United Nations Sustainable Development Web site: https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/education/

Agriculture, U. S. (2020, December). Coffee: World Markets and Trade. Retrieved from Foreign Agriculture Service Web site: https://apps.fas.usda.gov/psdonline/circulars/coffee.pdf

Ha, T.-H. (2016, June 24). John Donne’s solemn 400-year-old poem against isolationism is resonating today. Retrieved from Quartz Web site: https://qz.com/716088/john-donnes-solemn-400-year-old-poem-against-isolationism-is-resonating-with-brits-today/#:~:text=English%20poet%20John%20Donne%2C%20writing,of%20all%20people%20with%20God. Is your school or classroom 21st century? (n.d.). Is your school or classroom 21st century? Retrieved from 21st Century Schools: https://www.21stcenturyschools.com/20th-vs-21st-century-classroom.html Loo, C. (2018, March 18). Top Nine Nelson Mandela Quotes About Education. Retrieved from Borgen Project Web site: https://borgenproject.org/nelson-mandela-quotes-about-education/ MSM Higher Education. (n.d.). Global education and pathway options in the new normal. Retrieved from MSM Higher Education Web site: https://pathways.msmhighered.com/ MSM Higher Education. (n.d.). View from the Forest. Retrieved from MSM Higher Education Web site: https://msmhighered.com/view-from-the-forest/ Quality Education: Why it Matters. (n.d.). Quality Education: Why it Matters. Retrieved from United Nations Sustainable Development Web site: https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/4_Why-It-Matters-2020.pdf

Tichnor-Wagner, A. (2018, March 8). Why Global Education Matters. Retrieved from ASDC Web site: https://inservice.ascd.org/why-global-education-matters/ UNESCO. (n.d.). Global citizenship education. Retrieved from UNESCO Web site: https://en.unesco.org/themes/gced

CONNECT WITH US

Thank you for your interest in our services. please fill out the form below and we will get in touch with you..

CONCEPTUAL ANALYSIS article

Learning through play at school – a framework for policy and practice.

• 1 Education and Development Research Program, Australian Council for Educational Research, Camberwell, VIC, Australia
• 2 LEGO Foundation, Billund, Denmark

Learning through play has emerged as an important strategy to promote student engagement, inclusion, and holistic skills development beyond the preschool years. Policy makers, researchers and educators have promoted the notion that learning though play is developmentally appropriate—as it leverages school-age children’s innate curiosity while easing the often difficult transition from preschool to school. However, there is a dearth of evidence and practical guidance on how learning through play can be employed effectively in the formal school context, and the conditions that support success. This paper addresses the disconnect between policy, research and practice by presenting a range of empirical studies across a number of well-known pedagogies. These studies describe how children can foster cognitive, social, emotional, creative and physical skills through active engagement in learning that is experienced as joyful, meaningful, socially interactive, actively engaging and iterative. The authors propose an expanded definition for learning through play at school based on the science of learning, and summarize key findings from international studies on the impact of children’s learning through play. They identify four key challenges that underpin the considerable gap between education policy and practice, and propose a useful framework that addresses these challenges via a common language and structure to implement learning through play.

Learning Through Play and Global Education Policy and Practice

Our understanding that children learn through the natural inquiry process of play has a strong basis in research. Anthropologists, developmental psychologists and neuroscientists have studied and documented this phenomenon extensively ( Whitebread et al., 2012 ). More than a century ago, Dewey (1910) made the connection between children’s natural experimentation in play and the scientific inquiry process. Vygotsky (1978) noted that play is hugely influential on child development in fostering speech development, cognitive processing, self-awareness and self-regulation. Neuroscientists have discovered that the prefrontal cortex of the brain is refined by play, and play stimulates the production of a protein responsible for the differentiation and growth of new neurons and synapses ( Gordon et al., 2003 ). Conversely, play deprivation negatively affects brain development and problem-solving skills ( Pellis et al., 2014 ). Play interventions are widely used as a treatment for children who struggle to develop socio-emotional skills including establishing positive peer relationships ( Fantuzzo and Hampton, 2000 ).

The perennial interest in these ideas is reflected in current global education policy and research. Increasing numbers of international studies now measure holistic skills, such as socio-emotional learning, creative thinking, global competence, innovation, and physical development ( UNESCO, 2016 ; Vincent-Lancrin et al., 2017 ; OECD, 2018 ). Intergovernmental organizations such as the United Nations recognize that the skills, knowledge and values children need to thrive in the future far exceed proficiency in traditional learning areas such as literacy and numeracy ( UNESCO, n.d. ). As technology advances and workplaces evolve, governments and education systems are realizing that a more holistic view of education and learning is required, in order to best equip children to thrive, and ultimately, reach their full potential as adults in society ( Foundation for Young Australians [FYA], 2017 ; Ernst and Reynolds, 2021 ).

Understanding teaching practice across the early years is integral to advancing these goals. As global standards and outcomes for learning expand to include holistic skills, curricula have become more crowded and teachers’ roles ever more demanding ( Darling-Hammond, 2006 ). Which pedagogical approaches might most effectively achieve our expanded goals for education? Research points to learning through play as a promising pedagogy that is correspondingly expansive in its aims and outcomes for learning ( Marbina et al., 2011 ).

There are, however, significant challenges to embedding learning through play in practice. The first hurdle is semantic. Play is a complex phenomenon that is difficult to define ( Mastrangelo, 2009 ; McAloney and Stagnitti, 2009 ; Whitebread et al., 2012 ; Zosh et al., 2018 ). This presents a challenge—that the very basis for learning is a contested notion. Further, the lay definition of play is to “engage in an activity for enjoyment or recreation rather than a serious purpose” ( Oxford University Press, 2020 ). Play’s reputation as a non-serious/non-work-related pursuit is problematic, especially at school, where teachers are accustomed to more rigid curricula structures and attainment targets ( Martlew et al., 2011 ). The play/learning dichotomy trivializes play as an activity for recess only, or a reward for when the “real work” of learning is done ( Whitebread et al., 2012 ). When we dichotomize play and learning (or play and work) we negate the view that play itself is educational and children can learn through play ( Wing, 1995 ; Nilsson et al., 2018 ). This severely curtails its potential as an effective classroom-based pedagogy.

The second major impediment to implementing learning though play is the perception that it is a pedagogy native to preschool and incongruous to primary school learning. Some researchers have used synonymous terms, for example “active learning” in order to achieve legitimacy at school ( Martlew et al., 2011 ; Smith, 2015 ). While learning through play is associated with high quality early childhood education practice and research ( Wall et al., 2015 ; Nilsson et al., 2018 ), and international policy standards define early childhood as the years from zero to eight ( Irwin et al., 2007 ), studies of learning through play in school for children beyond age five are limited ( Howard, 2010 ; Jay and Knaus, 2018 ). Low uptake in school is likely due to differing perceptions of play and learning ( Smith, 2015 ) and the competing demands and constraints of the preschool and school learning environments ( Nicholson and Hendry, 2020 ). Other barriers to implementing learning through play include assessment and accountability. There is a lack of established instruments and consistent approaches to measuring the gains associated with playful learning conditions ( McAloney and Stagnitti, 2009 ; DeLuca and Hughes, 2014 ). Further, in a misguided effort to increase school readiness, some education systems are introducing basic reading and mathematics skills earlier in preschool at the expense of whole-child development through playful pedagogies ( Miller and Almon, 2009 ; Allee-Herndon and Roberts, 2020 ). The notion of readiness here is hierarchical, where the lower level serves the needs of the higher ( Moss, 2013 ), and is reflected across the system, reinforcing the equation that a higher level = higher importance, status, and stakes.

Inclusions and Key Terms

This article focuses on the pedagogy “learning through play,” also referred to as play-based learning ( Barblett, 2010 ), playful learning ( Fisher et al., 2010 ), and purposeful play ( Allee-Herndon and Roberts, 2020 ). We do not attempt to define “play” distinctly, nor situate play in educational contexts as a standalone phenomenon. We refer to ways that learning through play occurs, for example as child-led, adult-guided or adult-led as “facilitation” given they point to the roles adults and children occupy during learning through play experiences.

An Expanded Definition of Learning Through Play

A useful definition for learning through play should incorporate contemporary research about children’s experiences of play, address the role of the child and adult, and the desired learning outcomes of the approach. Researchers have found five characteristics that embody educational play experiences: those that that are meaningful, actively engaging, joyful, iterative, and socially interactive ( Zosh et al., 2017 ). Further, play has been recently redefined as a spectrum or continuum involving child-directed activity, and also adult-guided and adult-directed activity ( Weisberg et al., 2013 ; Pyle and Danniels, 2016 ), bringing clarity to the adult and child’s roles in facilitating learning through play. The spectrum acknowledges that learning through play, like engagement, is “not a dichotomous condition…it can be partial, fleeting and superficial” ( Hunzicker and Lukowiak, 2012 . p. 101). A nuanced understanding of the different types of play facilitation can help teachers to meaningfully reflect on their practice by identifying the types and balance within the context and purpose of a lesson, and the impact of these facilitation approaches on student experience and learning outcomes ( Zosh et al., 2018 ). In this paper, these ideas are presented alongside other key features of a framework for learning through play at school.

Henceforth, we define learning through play as when:

1. Children develop holistic skills by interacting with people, objects and representations ( Department of Education and Training, 2016 ) in actively engaging, joyful, iterative, meaningful and socially interactive experiences ( Zosh et al., 2017 ).

2. Experiences are designed and facilitated to make effective use of available resources and integrate child-led, teacher-guided, and teacher-led opportunities ( Marbina et al., 2011 ).

This article presents an evidence-based outlook for learning through play at school. It summarizes five key conclusions from Parker and Thomsen’s (2019) scoping review of evidence of the role and impact of learning through play at school as the basis for a contextually relevant quality framework. It describes four key challenges to connecting policy and practice that the framework attempts to address. It presents the framework and its essential dimensions: the child’s experience, the facilitator’s role, the activity design, and the outcomes of learning. It includes a discussion on the utility of the framework and future directions for development.

Conclusions From Learning Through Play at School

To address the dearth of evidence on the role and impact of learning through play beyond preschool, Parker and Thomsen (2019) completed a scoping review framed by the research question “how has learning through play been applied in formal schooling, and what has been the impact on children’s holistic skills” (p. 7). The review sought to understand current practice in schools around the world, and the extent to which learning through play belongs, and is beneficial, in formal education settings.

The research question was explored through multiple lenses. First, play was broadly defined using the five characteristics proposed by Zosh et al. (2017) . Parker and Thomsen (2019) reviewed a range of literature ( n = 124) across creativity, play and the science of learning and found that playful experiences lead to deeper learning when they are joyful, actively engaging, meaningful, iterative, and socially interactive. Deeper learning was described as learning that was meaningful, through making connections with prior knowledge ( Sinnema et al., 2011 ) and learning that is reinforced through different contexts and activities ( Marbina et al., 2011 ). The scoping review defined learning in the broadest sense, as the development of cognitive, social, emotional, creative, and physical skills, as consistent with the literature regarding whole child development in the early years ( Fisher et al., 2010 ). Through these dual lenses, the authors located and analyzed literature regarding play and learning at school (see Figure 1 ).

Figure 1. Conceptualization of learning through play for literature analysis.

The applicable cohort was defined as learners aged 6–12, and almost half of the studies ( n = 61) examined compared playful and traditional approaches using intervention or quasi-experimental methodologies. These were deemed most relevant as the research question focused on the impact , as in the learning outcomes, associated with learning through play.

Parker and Thomsen (2019) found that pedagogies that align closely with learning through play are those that arise from the same constructivist learning theories, namely active learning, collaborative and cooperative learning, experiential learning, guided discovery learning, inquiry-based learning, problem-based learning, project-based learning, and Montessori education. These approaches are facilitated in a way that integrates child-directed, teacher-guided and teacher led-learning ( Marbina et al., 2011 ). Accordingly, Parker and Thomsen (2019) used the term “playful integrated pedagogies” to collectively describe these approaches. Herein we have abridged the term to “playful pedagogies for ease of expression, while retaining the key word ‘play’.”

Parker and Thomsen’s (2019) review enhanced understanding of the scope of learning through play at school by offering five broad conclusions:

Finding 1: Learning Through Play Has a Place at School

When learning through play was defined as joyful, meaningful, iterative, socially interactive and actively engaging experiences , focused on fostering cognitive, social, emotional, creative and physical skills , it was found to be both relevant and widely used in primary school. Each of the characteristics of play, and the focus on holistic skills development, were explicit in a range of impact studies of active learning, collaborative and cooperative learning, experiential learning, guided discovery learning, inquiry-based learning, problem-based learning, project-based learning, and Montessori education. Parker and Thomsen (2019) unpacked the ways in which each of these approaches aligned with the definition of learning through play, for example, how they involved iteration to explore new concepts or ideas, or how they involved interaction with peers to foster socio-emotional learning. This finding is important as it suggests that schools can avoid “change fatigue” ( Dilkes et al., 2014 ) and start from where they are to refine and enhance implementation, rather than propose a completely new learning paradigm that requires significant systemic reform. Further, the sheer prevalence of these approaches across countries and systems suggests a strong and supportive base upon which to build improvements in quality.

Finding 2: Playful Pedagogies Can Be Highly Effective

There is abundant evidence of what works in education ( Hattie, 2009 ). However, there is often a lack of agreement about what the “what” actually is. Discovery learning, problem based learning, inquiry learning and experiential learning have been framed wholly as minimally guided ( Kirschner et al., 2006 ; Dinham, 2017 ), extensively guided ( Hmelo-Silver et al., 2007 ), or as a spectrum where some activities are guided by the teacher and some by the student ( Furtak et al., 2016 ). In some instances authors do not clearly define the pedagogy at all, rendering comparisons fruitless ( Cattaneo, 2017 ). Parker and Thomsen (2019) attempted to address this issue by defining each approach and describing the impact from peer reviewed empirical studies, making the review valuable to educators who use, plan to use, or plan to refine their practice regarding playful pedagogies. For these educators it is helpful to know what we mean by playful pedagogies, that they can be effective, and that they are effective under certain conditions (and what these conditions are, see Finding 4).

Evidence reviewed by Parker and Thomsen (2019) suggested that playful pedagogies can be more effective in fostering social, emotional, physical, cognitive and creative skills than “traditional” or more “highly guided” pedagogical approaches used in the primary school classroom. Studies measured the achievement and/or growth demonstrated by students learning under a more playful condition, with the results of students learning under a less-playful condition. The types of positive impact presented included: learning gains sustained over time ( DeanJr., and Kuhn, 2007 ); skills transfer to novel problems ( Purpura et al., 2016 ); more accurate recall of knowledge gained ( Castano, 2008 ); deeper understanding of concepts ( Burke and Williams, 2012 ); and making better connections between concepts ( Castano, 2008 ).

Finding 3: Effectiveness Is Underpinned by Key Enabling Factors

Parker and Thomsen (2019) recognized that it was not sufficient to simply make the case for learning through play at school via playful pedagogies, and present a range of impact evidence. By presenting a range of implementation quality factors, they suggest that framing, context, implementation processes and fidelity play key roles when considering success; no single pedagogical approach is inherently effective. The factors that underpin success are essential to understand in order to replicate positive results. Parker and Thomsen (2019) summarized a series of key success factors from the literature as follows:

• Student factors: Learners bring prior experiences, skills and knowledge to the classroom that may impede or support the implementation of strategies that, for example, require strong oral language, or decision-making skills ( Barron and Darling-Hammond, 2010 ; Tan and Chapman, 2016 ).

• Facilitation: Teachers understood and used essential strategies, understood their learners, scaffolded learning, adjusted their approach to meet the needs of their learners, and acted as learners’ mentors or guides. Teachers knew and understood what playful pedagogies are and are not, and they had sufficient subject matter knowledge to guide investigations ( Marbina et al., 2011 ; Block et al., 2012 ).

• Design: Teachers designed activities that built on learners’ experiences, knowledge and learning needs; they included long and short-term goals, were evidence-based, well planned and structured, combined facilitation types, and fostered higher order thinking and skills ( Block et al., 2012 ).

• Learning outcomes: Effective playful pedagogies covered depth not breadth, included multidimensional and integrated assessment, and allowed for some flexibility in implementation ( Schwartz et al., 2009 ).

• School, system and community: Supportive leadership and a whole of school approach to implementing playful pedagogies, including leadership support, planning, scheduling, time, physical space and resources are vital for success. When parents are actively engaged, and hold beliefs and values that align with playful approaches, success is more likely ( Davison et al., 2008 ; Jay and Knaus, 2018 ).

These key success factors informed the framework components and guiding questions below.

Finding 4: Effective Playful Pedagogies Combined Facilitation Types

For each of the eight playful pedagogies included in the scoping review, Parker and Thomsen (2019) presented a definition, its alignment with the characteristics of play, evidence of impact, and enabling factors. While noting that they are often used in combination ( Cattaneo, 2017 ), for example “experiential problem-based collaborative learning,” presenting playful pedagogies distinctly allowed the reader to identify the similarities across approaches, including those related to facilitation.

In distilling the evidence presented about each of the playful pedagogies regarding the teachers’ role, the techniques or methods they use, and the knowledge they possess, a common theme emerged. Teachers who use playful pedagogies effectively combined facilitation types. While they were primarily described as a guide, facilitator, or mentor ( Di Mauro and Furman, 2016 ), their lessons were also well planned and structured ( Purpura et al., 2016 ) and often framed by discussions about prior knowledge of the topic at the outset ( Hotulainen et al., 2016 ) to prepare minds for learning ( Bruner, 1961 ) and included opportunities for reflection in groups ( Johnson and Johnson, 1991 ). Classroom rules were co-created with learners ( Kaput, 2018 ) enabling learners the freedom to act independently ( Block et al., 2012 ). Featured prominently in the evidence was scaffolding ( Hmelo-Silver et al., 2007 ), described as posing open-ended questions ( Haßler et al., 2015 ), encouraging knowledge sharing, monitoring discussions, and providing hints and guiding questions ( Hushman and Marley, 2015 ), coaching, feedback, worked examples, and modeling ( Alfieri et al., 2011 ). Teachers provided opportunities for hands-on learning ( McBride et al., 2016 ) exploration of ideas and materials, and fostered agency by encouraging students to make decisions about their learning ( Fullan and Langworthy, 2014 ) such as how an activity is performed or when it is complete ( Laevers, 2000 ). There was clear evidence of teacher direction, teacher guidance, and child-directed activity in school classrooms that use playful pedagogies effectively. This description echoes Zosh et al. (2018) who described the range of what they called “play types,” all distinctly valuable within a spectrum of play, adding nuance to the often binary discourse around play and learning, and Marbina et al. (2011) description of purposeful integration of child-led, teacher-guided, and teacher-led learning as best practice in early childhood education settings including primary school.

Finding 5: Agency Is Central to Playful Pedagogies

A number of studies ( n = 10) reviewed by Parker and Thomsen (2019) included the concepts of learner choice and agency regarding learning content and process, as essential features of playful pedagogies. Fostering independent and autonomous learners who are skilled at decision-making is described as a goal for learning via playful pedagogies. When learners have the opportunity to practice making meaningful choices about their project or inquiry topic and how it is undertaken, in conjunction with teacher support and facilitation, learners demonstrate greater engagement, motivation and positive disposition toward learning. Agency and autonomy in learning are associated with fostering ownership of learning ( Fullan and Langworthy, 2014 ), empowered and self-actualized learners, and the development of executive function, problem solving and planning skills.

Parker and Thomsen (2019) tabulated the features of effective and highly agentic learning environments and found that they were characterized as those where learners:

• Make authentic and genuine choices about their learning ( Verner and Lay, 2010 ; Hixson et al., 2012 ; Fullan and Langworthy, 2014 ).

• Ask teachers questions and offer opinions or reflections ( Smith, 2015 ).

• Have freedom of movement within the classroom to interact with teachers, peers and materials as appropriate ( Smith, 2015 ).

• Have time to overcome “false starts” and “failures” when task choices need revisiting or groups reformed ( Tan and Chapman, 2016 ).

• Make authentic and genuine choices in combination with other instructional strategies ( Tan and Chapman, 2016 ).

• Are guided by teachers to make decisions about learning ( Smith, 2015 ).

• Are guided by teachers to make choices involving carefully planned, managed and rigorously assessed tasks ( Hixson et al., 2012 ).

• Learn choice-making skills gradually and experientially ( Fullan and Langworthy, 2014 ).

Connecting Policy and Practice

Increasingly, teachers are positioned as agents of change, responsible for putting policy into practice ( van der Heijden et al., 2018 ). Their individual beliefs, skills, knowledge and attitudes act as mediators between what is written in policy and what is enacted in the classroom—therefore translation is an “uncertain process” ( Priestley, 2011 , p. 2). In addition, it has been argued elsewhere that reform and innovation do not travel well, whether across time periods or across contexts ( Watkins and Biggs, 2001 ; Hargreaves, 2010 ). Despite growing support for learning through play at a global policy level, and evidence that there are a number of playful pedagogies that share the characteristics of learning through play, implementation in the primary school classroom presents a series of challenges.

Challenge 1: A Lack of Continuity Between Preschool and School Pedagogies

Globally recognized definitions of early childhood span the years zero to eight ( World Health Organization [WHO], 2020 ), meaning that early childhood education straddles the two distinct learning contexts of preschool and school. The pedagogies employed in these two settings are often starkly different, particularly when comparing preschool and the early primary years beyond year one ( Woodhead and Moss, 2007 ). In recent years, there has been a call for more didactic learning in preschool, referred to as the “pushdown curriculum” ( Miller and Almon, 2009 ). Others argue that the principles and approaches of high-quality early learning should be “pushed up” into school, acknowledging that the transition process is multidirectional and the responsibility of all early childhood stakeholders, to ensure that schools are ready for children ( OECD, 2017 ). Adding to the challenge of implementing learning through play within the school context, most learning through play policy and research focuses largely on pre-school rather than primary school settings ( Bubikova-Moan et al., 2019 ). Arguably, the two contexts bring with them important differences that must be considered when attempting to implement instructional practices and pedagogical approaches described at the policy level ( Allee-Herndon and Roberts, 2020 ). Such division amongst the different communities of practice around the place for play in learning, and disregard for the different contexts of early childhood education, does not help to move policy initiatives forward ( Nicholson and Hendry, 2020 ).

Challenge 2: A Lack of Clarity Around the Definition and Role of Learning Through Play at School

Along with issues of context, there is a persistent lack of consensus and clarity about what we mean by learning through play. Indeed, the terms play and learning may be so familiar that we run the risk of believing they do not need to be defined under the assumption that a common understanding already exists amongst the education community. The importance of speaking a common language around any reform or policy initiative cannot be underestimated ( Hill, 2006 ). A common language ensures that all parties understand the intended change in the same way (policy makers, system leaders, school-based educators, community). This can be described as “collective sensemaking” or the “creation of coherent and shared explanations for ‘how we do things around here”’ ( Louis, 2010 , p. 18). Without clear and precise definitions of these terms, it remains difficult to know if contributors to the debate are talking about the same thing or if the conceptions held by different stakeholders are congruent. Furthermore, without a clear understanding of what implementation looks like at varying levels of quality, it is hard to reliably evaluate the effectiveness of any attempts to implement policy initiatives around playful learning in any meaningful way.

Challenge 3: A Lack of Consensus About the Intended Outcomes of Education

Any attempt to conceptualize learning through play must consider not only the “play” element but also what quality learning looks like and what outcomes of learning are expected. The current push for evidence-based or evidence-informed practice within the field of education hinges on the ability to generate and access evidence of the effectiveness of an instructional practice in facilitating student outcomes such as academic achievement or growth ( Pyle et al., 2017 ). It is fair to say that there is a tendency to favor outcomes such as literacy and numeracy development, where there are well-established means of assessing student progress, rather than the broader skills associated with learning through play ( Pyle et al., 2020 ). This may explain, in part, the persistent questions about the effectiveness of playful pedagogies ( Cheng et al., 2008 ), and may result in uncertainty on the part of educators who wish to integrate this approach in the classroom ( Smith, 2015 ). Even amongst proponents of learning through play, there is debate over whether play is essential for learning and development or one of many paths to learning and development (the notion of equifinality) ( Roskos et al., 2010 ). Roskos et al. (2010) argued that some may believe play is nice but non-essential for learning and development, while outwardly espousing a more favorable view of play in accordance with prevailing socially acceptable ideas. That is, it is not acceptable to speak in a negative way about play, so any such views must remain hidden. Roskos et al. (2010 , p. 57) go on to argue that while the views may remain hidden, they exert a “strong influence on educational policy and practice.” Presumably, play is replaced by other means of learning that are deemed more essential or effective for achieving the identified outcomes. This brings the discussion back to the need for stakeholders at all levels—research, policy, system and school—to contribute to the collective decision-making about the outcomes they are pursuing, how to best facilitate those outcomes within the different contexts of the education system and how to reliably measure those outcomes.

Challenge 4: A Division Between the Policy Environment and the Communities of Implementation

The push for holistic child development through greater access to quality learning through play within our education systems is evident ( Queensland Government, n.d. ; Scottish Government, 2013 ; Zhao, 2015 ). However, the challenge of translating policy into practice is well recognized. Hargreaves (2010) observed, “seeds travel better than ripened fruit” (p. 115) and proposed that a more promising path may be to encourage policy principles to be interpreted among and between the communities of practice that will be charged with putting those principles into practice. Yet the division amongst these different communities of practice (preschool and school), coupled with a lack of clearly conceptualized “seeds” relating to the principles of learning through play, inhibit the successful implementation of quality learning through play within the school context.

Connecting the concept of learning through play with pedagogies familiar within the school context offers a step toward greater clarity about how learning through play might be implemented at school. Rather than disregarding the issue of context and the impact that it may have on the implementation of learning through play, Parker and Thomsen (2019) offered a bridge to connect the school context with the concept of play-based learning. These efforts support the realization of the key policy message found in the OECD’s study Starting Strong V: Transitions from Early Childhood Education and Care to Primary Education (2017), that “schools [should] be ready for children, not children ready for school” (p. 16). Similarly, the characteristics of learning through play described by Zosh et al. (2017) help to more clearly define the concept in a way that brings in the experience of the student, and the description of holistic skills used by Parker and Thomsen (2019) defines the expanded goals for learning that might be supported by quality play experiences. At present, these efforts to clearly describe what is meant by learning through play within the context of early years education remain at the level of loosely connected ideas rather than interconnected elements that are the fundamental “seeds” of implementing quality learning through play. Similarly, Perkins and Reese (2014) argued that a key factor in sustainable and successful change initiatives is the existence of a quality framework that “provides teachers with a common perspective and language while allowing adaptation to different subjects, levels, and students” (p. 42). Importantly, these frameworks are not rigid directives that are imposed on teachers but remain flexible and adaptable to fit the individual context. In this way, the framework provides a tool to bring people together around a common goal or vision, while inviting active input from those involved in the implementation.

A Framework for Learning Through Play at School

Parker and Thomsen (2019) mapped the landscape of playful pedagogies and in doing so confirmed the characteristics of play as relevant and useful within primary school settings. They described the impact of playful pedagogies on learning outcomes, and explored design and facilitation features. Their work provides a theoretical foundation on which to build a framework to explore quality in learning through play. This framework could be used by all education stakeholders, including practitioners, to establish a common language and a consistent set of principles regarding play, learning, and quality in school education contexts. This is currently missing from the landscape of education research, policy, and practice, and is a significant barrier to understanding and uptake of playful pedagogies.

When education stakeholders proceed from a common understanding about play and learning, evidence about current practice can be gathered and quality assessed. It is argued that there are four key dimensions of quality learning through play: the learning outcomes, the play experience, the design, and the facilitation. These dimensions are presented in Figure 2 . The relationships between them are signified with arrows to show how and where the elements are interconnected and intersect, and to remind the user of their relationship to each other. Each dimension is discussed, examples provided, and key guiding questions are offered for schools and systems to consider for planning next steps.

Figure 2. Framework for quality learning through play at school.

Student Experience

The framework incorporates the child’s experience as a component of equal importance to the other three. This perspective aligns with principles articulated in international doctrine about the child’s right to participate and be heard ( United Nations Human Rights, 1989 ), to be recognized as capable ( Haßler et al., 2015 ; National Association for the Education of Young Children [NAEYC], 2020 ), and to make choices about their learning ( Fullan and Langworthy, 2014 ). Student experience is a unique feature of the framework and a positive step toward seeing learning through students’ eyes; understanding what learning feels and looks like to them. This is a much needed and often missing piece of the quality teaching and learning puzzle, particularly in primary and secondary school ( Hattie, 2009 ).

Implementing playful pedagogies requires schools and systems to consider how the student will experience learning as playful. The five characteristics of learning through play and the notion of student agency are useful organizing themes to support teachers’ thinking in relation to this dimension. How a child experiences a playful learning activity could be considered in the activity design and measured in formative and summative ways. For example, Fitch and Hulgin (2008) recorded the student experience by observing that students asked to continue learning using their collaborative approach. Collecting data on children’s experience of the emotions they felt, both positive and negative, and how they rate the challenge is important to understanding how children experience learning through play.

Embedding the characteristics of play in activities and lessons requires schools and systems to see the experience through the eyes of the learner rather than taking the perspective of the teacher. Key guiding questions that underpin student experience and quality learning through play include:

- What do systems, schools, school leaders and teachers understand about the characteristics of playful learning, and the playful pedagogies that might provide opportunities for such experience?

- How do systems and school communities including leaders support playful pedagogies, that is, approaches that emphasize active engagement in learning, student agency over their learning, learning that is meaningful to the individual and positive social interactions that contribute to learning?

Learning Outcomes

Successfully implementing playful pedagogies involves planning for intended learning outcomes. As discussed above, learning via playful pedagogies is understood in the broadest sense to refer to educating the whole child; fostering a range of skills and understandings. The focus on the whole-child development is a key distinguishing feature of learning through play when compared with other less-playful educational approaches regarding outcomes ( Allee-Herndon and Roberts, 2020 ). All learning gains made by children are valued when learning through play, be they social, emotional, physical, cognitive or creative. However, it is important to carefully consider the suitability of impact measurement and assessment tools to capture holistic skills. For example, Block et al. (2012) found no statistically significant difference between program and comparison schools participating in a structured cooking and gardening program using standardized quantitative measures of child wellbeing and attendance. However, interviews, observations and focus groups revealed the program as enjoyable with a positive impact on student engagement, confidence, and social connections at school and beyond. In the classroom, Barron and Darling-Hammond (2010) point to performance tasks as key to measuring the broad range of skills gained via inquiry-based learning.

Key guiding questions about play and learning outcomes include:

- How are teachers supported to connect related skills and concepts within the curriculum?

- How are teachers supported to identify individual levels of development and targeted goals for learning?

- To what extent are a range of holistic learning outcomes included and connected within the curriculum?

- To what extent is deep learning possible?

- To what extent can the curriculum be differentiated to cater for the range of ability levels within a classroom?

- Does the curriculum emphasize depth over breadth in learning, take a developmental view of learning and value a range of learning outcomes?

Facilitation

It remains true that even the most thoughtfully designed learning experience can fail to achieve the intended outcomes if teachers are unable to effectively facilitate playful learning in the classroom. Skillful facilitation of learning through play is a complex process that requires a blend of teacher-guided, student-led, and teacher-directed practices. This provides students with the guidance and scaffolding needed to support learning, while also supporting student agency and autonomy in their learning ( Weisberg et al., 2016 ). While elements of facilitation may be planned during the design process, effective facilitation will inevitably involve skillful monitoring during the experience, adjustments in response to emerging needs and continuous assessment of student learning within the experience. For example, Hotulainen et al. (2016) described their enriched discovery learning program designed to foster first graders’ thinking skills as featuring strong teacher-guidance. Teachers described the rules of the card game, provided scaffolded instruction where needed, and at the end of each lesson, facilitated a reflective discussion with children on what was difficult and how they overcame challenges.

Key guiding questions to answer regarding learning through play and facilitation include:

- How do teachers and schools ensure opportunities are provided for a range of facilitation types when children learn through play, and for what activity, outcome and purpose?

- To what extent are teachers empowered and equipped by schools, leaders and systems to differentiate within lessons to respond to individual learning needs by balancing instruction with guidance and open-ended inquiry?

- How are teachers supported to implement a range of formative assessment strategies and use the evidence gathered to inform their facilitation of learning with the lesson?

The design of the learning experience brings together the intentions for learning and experience of play. The key concern is how to make use of all available resources (students, materials, teacher/s and the learning environment) to best achieve the intentions for the learning experience. For example, Marshall (2017) described two key design features of the Montessori educational method as the learning materials and children’s self-directed engagement with them. Sensory materials such as toys, utensils are tools are integral to the Montessori classroom for the purposes of preparing the child for independent living, and building fine and gross motor skills. Children’s self-directed engagement with materials has the twofold purpose of providing useful information to the teacher observer, and also supporting the child’s ability to focus ( Marshall, 2017 ) and develop self-control Gray, 2011 ). Features of playful designs are activities and questions that are relevant and meaningful for children in that they integrate concepts and skills from the curriculum with children’s interests and experiences. Key guiding questions regarding design and learning through play include:

- How can children and teachers access and/or leverage a wide range of available resources and a physical learning environment inside and outside school that is conducive to playful learning?

- Can teachers access and establish dialog with supportive networks within the school and community?

A framework for play and learning was created to progress research connecting policy and practice by creating continuity between the early years learning contexts and implementation in schools. This section includes a discussion of how well the framework achieves these aims. The framework is underpinned by definitional statements based on the science of learning, relevant child development theory, the role of the child and adult, and existing high impact teaching strategies. These statements give meaning and intent to framework elements, making them applicable to the school learning context.

The Framework for Quality LTP (Learning through Play) offers a basic structure to think about, understand, apply, and evaluate learning through play and playful pedagogies. Educational stakeholders often proceed from an implied understanding of play, learning, and the value of both. Yet beliefs and understandings about play and learning are as diverse as the experiences upon which these beliefs are based. The framework makes explicit what is meant by these terms, and does so in ways that bridge dichotomous representations which have inhibited progress and understanding to date ( Furtak et al., 2016 ). In doing so, the framework creates a common language around learning through play and playful pedagogies to enable “collective sense making,” where all those responsible for developing, designing, applying, and evaluating playful pedagogies understand them in the same way.

The Framework for Quality LTP could potentially facilitate better connections between policy and practice. The early years policy and practice disconnect is widely acknowledged and documented. Early years policy is often informed by evidence about the value of child-centered playful pedagogical approaches in the first years of school (Queensland Government, n.d.; Kaput, 2018 ), yet this policy discourse does not always align with and therefore travel across into school policy contexts. The disconnect extends to and is reinforced by the institutions and departments that support education for children aged zero to eight, with preservice education courses for preschool teachers and primary school teachers offered and taught separately. Further, educational research communities are organized into different groups depending on their focus on preschool or school teaching and learning. The position titles of those who facilitate learning in these contexts are usually distinct, and there are differing perceptions held about the value, contribution and professionalism of these roles within the education sector ( Harwood et al., 2013 ). These divisions do children no favors as they prevent implementation of a cohesive and consistent educational offering for those aged zero to eight and beyond. The Framework for Quality LTP was designed incorporating empirical evidence, child development theories and effective teaching research across preschool and school contexts. It utilizes a definition which is broadly relevant to the early years and is based on current pedagogical practice in schools. It could reasonably be picked up by any school or system wishing to understand, apply or evaluate the quality of their playful practice.

The Framework for Quality LTP has the potential to empower teachers as agents of change by establishing a common understanding around playful pedagogies, impact and facilitation. Play has been used in the classroom as a reward, an opportunity for teachers to undertake administration, or to occupy children while a single child receives focused attention ( Gronlund, 2010 ). Teachers are understandably skeptical about adopting playful pedagogies without a clear understanding of “the how and why” ( Martlew et al., 2011 ). The Framework for Quality LTP addresses some fundamental questions posed by teachers about the value and impact of playful pedagogies, such as their role as an active facilitator, and how playful learning aligns with the curriculum, and is not devoid of structure.

For school communities to support playful pedagogies they must understand what is meant by play and learning, the roles and responsibilities of child and teacher, and the benefits for learning. The Framework for Quality LTP offers a clear and consistent language around play and learning that aligns with the expectations of school communities around evidence of learning and the teacher’s role as facilitator. It provides a consistent language to communicate to school communities the role and benefits of playful pedagogies as legitimate vehicles for learning.

A lack of consensus on a definition and the core components of learning through play at school means it is not currently possible to develop instruments to measure the impact. The Framework for Quality LTP provides the opportunity to develop the research base and the type of instruments required to effectively measure playful learning, for both research purposes and formative and summative assessment. These include “performance assessments, and portfolio evaluation that apply learning to real problems of practice” ( Darling-Hammond, 2006 , p. 6). However, there are critical steps in the research process required to determine the validity of the framework across different contexts.

A framework based on constructivist learning theories is useful as it acknowledges the reality of classroom teaching practice—that these pedagogies, while conceptualized in isolation, are often referred to interchangeably ( Friesen and Scott, 2013 ), as overlapping ( Barron and Darling-Hammond, 2010 ), or applied in combination to meet all learners needs ( Goldstein, 2016 ). Assessment and evaluative tools exist for specific pedagogical approaches such as project-based learning. However, it is challenging to assess a combined approach, for example, an active inquiry-based experiential learning approach. Comparing approaches has limited usefulness ( Cattaneo, 2017 ), but an overarching framework offers the potential to create consistent evaluative tools to gather useful data about the efficacy of combined playful approaches.

Future Directions

The evidence that play supports learning is considerable. Moreover, understanding of learning has greatly expanded over the last few decades to include creative thinking, problem solving and socio-emotional learning as essential skills. This paper illuminates playful pedagogies and their potential to support schools and systems to catch up with advances in education research and learning theories. The Framework for Quality LTP holds the promise of a common collective language and dialog about play and learning to further the field and enhance quality. Other frameworks or rubrics may be needed, including those that measure the progress made by both teachers and students. When systems or schools commence a process of review of evaluation to support implementation of playful pedagogies, different stakeholders will be situated at different points at the start and along the path, and these points and their associated characteristics can be described. For this reason, it might be helpful to define the student experience of learning as aiming to equip students with the confidence and agency to drive their own learning through the life span . Further, this thinking could be extended to describe three levels of progression within this category as follows:

• Student experiences are passive, following standards with no clear commitment or discernible expression of interest from the learner.

• Student experiences are active, with opportunity to adjust approaches to own interests with greater focus and greater understanding.

• Student experiences are self-driven with the confidence to try out new projects and apply their knowledge and skills to new situations.

Similarly, when teachers seek to employ playful pedagogies in the classroom, there are various identifiable points along the learning journey, characterized as three levels:

• Facilitation is applied with one instructional strategy without consideration for individual learner needs and context.

• Facilitation is needs-based with consideration for the individual student.

• Facilitation is adaptable and responsive to the context of the individual and classroom environment.

Further research would be valuable to extrapolate these levels and test them in different contexts with different classroom cohorts, and to develop common learning progressions for students and teachers regarding learning through play.

Author Contributions

All authors listed have made a substantial, direct, and intellectual contribution to the work, and approved it for publication.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s Note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Alfieri, L., Brooks, P. J., Aldrich, N. J., and Tenenbaum, H. R. (2011). Does discovery-based instruction enhance learning? J. Educ. Psychol. 103, 1–18. doi: 10.1037/a0021017

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Allee-Herndon, K. A., and Roberts, S. K. (2020). The Power of Purposeful Play in Primary Grades: adjusting Pedagogy for Children’s Needs and Academic Gains. J. Educ. 201, 54–63.

Google Scholar

Barblett, L. (2010). Why play-based learning? Every Child 16, 4–5.

Barron, B., and Darling-Hammond, L. (2010). “Prospects and challenges for inquiry-based approaches to learning,” in The nature of learning: Using research to inspire practice , eds H. Dumont, D. Istance, and F. Benavides (Paris: OECD Publishing), 199–225. doi: 10.1787/9789264086487-11-en

Block, K., Gibbs, L., Staiger, P. K., Gold, L., Johnson, B., Macfarlane, S., et al. (2012). Growing community: the impact of the Stephanie Alexander Kitchen Garden Program on the social and learning environment in primary schools. Health Educ. Behav. 39, 419–432. doi: 10.1177/1090198111422937

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Bruner, J. S. (1961). The act of discovery. Harv. Educ. Rev. 31, 21–32. doi: 10.1016/s0260-6917(97)80004-4

Bubikova-Moan, J., Hanne Næss, H., and Wollscheid, S. (2019). “ECE Teachers’ views on play-based learning: a systematic review. Eur. Early Child. Educ. Res. J. 27, 776–800. doi: 10.1080/1350293X.2019.1678717

Burke, L. A., and Williams, J. M. (2012). The impact of a thinking skills intervention on children’s concepts of intelligence. Think. Skills Creat. 7, 145–152. doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2012.01.001

Castano, C. (2008). Socio-scientific discussions as a way to improve the comprehension of science and the understanding of the interrelation between species and the environment. Res. Sci. Educ. 38, 565–587. doi: 10.1007/s11165-007-9064-7

Cattaneo, K. H. (2017). Telling active learning pedagogies apart: from theory to practice. J. New Approaches Educ. Res. 6, 144–152. doi: 10.7821/naer.2017.7.237

Cheng, R. W. Y., Lam, S. F., and Chan, J. C. Y. (2008). When high achievers and low achievers work in the same group: the roles of group heterogeneity and processes in project-based learning. Br. J. Educ. Psychol. 78, 205–221. doi: 10.1348/000709907X218160

Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Constructing 21st-century teacher education. J. Teach. Educ. 57, 300–314. doi: 10.1177/0022487105285962

Davison, L., Galbraith, I., and McQueen, M. (2008). Cooperative learning: a partnership between an EPS and a school. Educ. Psychol. Pract. 24, 307–317. doi: 10.1080/02667360802488740

Dean, D. Jr., and Kuhn, D. (2007). Direct instruction vs. discovery: the long view. Sci. Educ. 91, 384–397. doi: 10.1002/sce.20194

DeLuca, C., and Hughes, S. (2014). Assessment in early primary education: an empirical study of five school contexts. J. Res. Child. Educ. 28, 441–460. doi: 10.1080/02568543.2014.944722

Department of Education and Training (2016). Victorian Early Years Learning and Development Framework (VEYLDF): For all children from birth to eight years. Available online at: https://www.education.vic.gov.au/Documents/childhood/providers/edcare/veyldframework.pdf (accessed July, 2021).

Dewey, J. (1910). How we think. Boston: D.C. Heath& Co Publishers. Retrieved from https://openlibrary.org/books/OL7236952M/How_we_think .

Di Mauro, M. F., and Furman, M. (2016). Impact of an inquiry unit on grade 4 students’ science learning. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 38, 2239–2258. doi: 10.1080/09500693.2016.1234085

Dilkes, J., Cunningham, C., and Gray, J. (2014). The New Australian Curriculum, Teachers and Change Fatigue. Aust. J. Teach. Educ. 39, 45–64. doi: 10.1089/jayao.2011.0006

Dinham, S. (2017). The lack of an evidence base for teaching and learning?: fads, myths, legends, ideology and wishful thinking. Prof. Voice 11, 17–25.

Ernst, J. R., and Reynolds, A. J. (2021). Preschool instructional approaches and age 35 health and well-being. Prev. Med. Rep. 23:101498. doi: 10.1016/j.pmedr.2021.101498

Fantuzzo, J. W., and Hampton, V. R. (2000). “Penn interactive peer play scale: A parent and teacher rating system for young children,” in Play Diagnosis and Assessment , 2nd Edn, eds K. Gitlin-Weiner, A. Sandgrund, and C. Schaefer (Hoboken: John Wiley), 599–620.

Fisher, K., Hirsh-Pasek, K., Golinkoff, R. M., Singer, D. G., and Berk, L. (2010). “Playing around in school: Implications for Learning and Education Policy,” in The Oxford Handbook of the Development of Play , eds P. Nathan and A. D. Pelligrini (Oxford: Oxford University Press), doi: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195393002.001.0001

Fitch, E. F., and Hulgin, K. M. (2008). Achieving inclusion through CLAD: collaborative Learning Assessment through Dialogue. Int. J. Incl. Educ. 12, 423–439. doi: 10.1080/13603110601121453

Foundation for Young Australians [FYA] (2017). The New Work Order. Ensuring young Australians have skills and experience for the jobs of the future, not the past. Melbourne: FYA.

Friesen, S., and Scott, D. (2013). Inquiry-based learning?: A review of the research literature. Alberta Ministry of Education. Available online at: http://galileo.org/focus-on-inquiry-lit-review.pdf (accessed July, 2021).

Fullan, M., and Langworthy, M. (2014). A Rich Seam: How New Pedagogies Find Deep Learning. London: Pearson.

Furtak, E. M., Seidel, T., Iverson, H., and Briggs, D. C. (2016). Experimental and quasi-experimental studies of inquiry-based science teaching: a meta- analysis. Rev. Educ. Res. 82, 300–329. doi: 10.3102/0034654312457206

Goldstein, O. (2016). A project-based learning approach to teaching physics for pre-service elementary school teacher education students. Cogent Educ. 3:1200833. doi: 10.1080/2331186X.2016.1200833

Gordon, N. S., Burke, S., Akil, H., Watson, S. J., and Panksepp, J. (2003). Socially-induced brain “fertilization”: play promotes brain derived neurotrophic factor transcription in the amygdala and dorsolateral frontal cortex in juvenile rats. Neurosci. Lett. 341, 17–20. doi: 10.1016/s0304-3940(03)00158-7

Gray, P. (2011). The Decline of Play and the Rise of Psychopathology in Children and Adolescents. Am. J. Play 3, 443–463.

Gronlund, G. (2010). Developmentally Appropriate Play: Guiding Young Children to a Higher Level. St. Paul: Red Leaf Press.

Hargreaves, A. (2010). “Change from without: Lessons from other countries, systems, and sectors,” in Springer International Handbooks of Education: Second international handbook of educational change , eds A. Hargreaves, A. Lieberman, M. Fullan, and D. Hopkins (Berlin: Springer), 105–117. doi: 10.1007/978-90-481-2660-6_6

Harwood, D., Klopper, A., Osanyin, A., and Vanderlee, M.-L. (2013). ‘It’s more than care’: early childhood educators’ concepts of professionalism. Early Years 33, 4–17. doi: 10.1080/09575146.2012.667394

Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A Synthesis of Over 800 Meta-Analyses Relating to Achievement. Oxfordshire: Routledge. doi: 10.4324/9780203887332

Haßler, B., Hennessy, S., Cross, A., Chileshe, E., and Machiko, B. (2015). School-based professional development in a developing context: lessons learnt from a case study in Zambia. Prof. Dev. Educ. 41, 806–825. doi: 10.1080/19415257.2014.938355

Hill, H. (2006). “Language matters: How characteristics of language complicate policy implementation,” in New directions in education policy implementation: Confronting complexity , ed. M. Honig (Albany: State University of New York Press).

Hixson, N., Ravitz, J., and Whisman, A. (2012). Extended professional development in project-based learning: Impacts on 21st century teaching and student achievement. Charleston: West Virginia Department of Education.

Hmelo-Silver, C., Duncan, R., and Chinn, C. (2007). Scaffolding and achievement in problem-based and inquiry based learning: a response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006). Educ. Psychol. 42, 99–107. doi: 10.1080/00461520701263368

Hotulainen, R., Mononen, R., and Aunio, P. (2016). Thinking skills intervention for low-achieving first graders. Eur. J. Spec. Needs Educ. 31, 360–375. doi: 10.1080/08856257.2016.1141541

Howard, J. (2010). Early years practitioners’ perceptions of play: an exploration of theoretical understanding, planning and involvement, confidence and barriers to practice. Educ. Child Psychol. 27, 91–102.

Hunzicker, J., and Lukowiak, T. (2012). Effective Teaching and Student Engagement in the College Classroom: using the Instructional Practices Inventory (IPI) as a Tool for Peer Observation and Self-Reflection. J. Excell. Coll. Teach. 23, 99–132.

Hushman, C. J., and Marley, S. C. (2015). Guided instruction improves elementary student learning and self-efficacy in science. J. Educ. Res. 108, 371–381. doi: 10.1080/00220671.2014.899958

Irwin, L. G., Siddiqi, A., and Hertzman, C. (2007). Early child development: A powerful equalizer: Final report. Available online at: http://whqlibdoc.who.int/hq/2007/a91213.pdf?ua=1 (accessed July, 2021).

Jay, J. A., and Knaus, M. (2018). Embedding play-based learning into junior primary (Year 1 and 2) curriculum in WA. Aust. J. Teach. Educ. 43, 112–126. doi: 10.14221/ajte.2018v43n1.7

Johnson, D. W., and Johnson, R. T. (1991). Learning Together and Alone: Cooperative, Competitive, and Individualistic Learning , 3rd Edn. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Kaput, K. (2018). Evidence for Student-Centered Learning. Minnesota: Education Evolving.

Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., and Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: an analysis of the failure of constructivist, problem-based, experiential and inquiry-based teaching. Educ. Psychol. 41, 75–86. doi: 10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1

Laevers, F. (2000). Forward to basics! Deep-level-learning and the experiential approach. Early Years 20, 20–29. doi: 10.1080/0957514000200203

Louis, K. S. (2010). “Better schools through better knowledge? New understanding, new uncertainty,” in Springer International Handbooks of Education: Second international handbook of educational change , eds A. Hargreaves, A. Lieberman, M. Fullan, and D. Hopkins (Berlin: Springer), 105–117. doi: 10.1007/978-90-481-2660-6_1

Marbina, L., Church, A., and Tayler, C. (2011). Victorian early years learning and development framework: Evidence paper: Practice principle 6: Integrated teaching and learning approaches. Parkville: University of Melbourne.

Marshall, C. (2017). Montessori education: a review of the evidence base. NPJ Sci. Learn. 2:11. doi: 10.1038/s41539-017-0012-7

Martlew, J., Stephen, C., and Ellis, J. (2011). Play in the primary school classroom? The experience of teachers supporting children’s learning through a new pedagogy. Early Years 31, 71–83. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0222447

Mastrangelo, S. (2009). Harnessing the power of play. Teach. Except. Child. 42, 34–44. doi: 10.1177/004005990904200104

McAloney, K., and Stagnitti, K. (2009). Pretend Play and Social Play: the Concurrent Validity of the Child-Initiated Pretend Play Assessment. Int. J. Play Ther. 18, 99–113. doi: 10.1111/j.1440-1630.2008.00761.x

McBride, A. M., Chung, S., and Robertson, A. (2016). Preventing academic disengagement through a middle school–based social and emotional learning program. J. Exp. Educ. 39, 370–385. doi: 10.1177/1053825916668901

Miller, E., and Almon, J. (2009). Crisis in the Kindergarten: Why Children Need to Play in School. Maryland: Alliance for Childhood.

Moss, P. (2013). Early Childhood and Compulsory Education: Reconceptualising the Relationship. London: Routledge.

National Association for the Education of Young Children [NAEYC] (2020). Developmentally appropriate practice: A position statement of the National Association for the Education of Young Children. Washington: NAEYC.

Nicholson, P., and Hendry, H. (2020). A pedagogical meeting place or a problem space? Extending play-based pedagogy in Year One. Education 50, 184–196. doi: 10.1080/03004279.2020.1840608

Nilsson, M., Ferholt, B., and Lecusay, R. (2018). “The Playing-Exploring Child”: reconceptualizing the Relationship between Play and Learning in Early Childhood Education. Contemp. Issues Early Child. 19, 231–245. doi: 10.1177/1463949117710800

OECD (2017). Starting Strong V: Transitions from Early Childhood Education and Care to Primary Education. Paris: OECD. doi: 10.1787/9789264276253-en

OECD (2018). Future of Education and Skills: Education 2030. Paris: OECD.

Oxford University Press (2020). Definition of play. In Lexico UK dictionary. Available online at: https://www.lexico.com/definition/play (accessed July, 2021).

Parker, R., and Thomsen, B. S. (2019). Learning through play at school: A study of playful integrated pedagogies that foster children’s holistic skills development in the primary school classroom. Billund: LEGO Foundation.

Pellis, S. M., Pellis, V. C., and Himmler, B. T. (2014). How play makes for a more adaptable brain: a comparative and neural perspective. Am. J. Play 7:73.

Perkins, D., and Reese, J. (2014). When change has legs. Educ. Leadersh. 71, 42–47. doi: 10.1007/s00268-016-3706-8

Priestley, M. (2011). Schools, teachers, and curriculum change: a balancing act? J. Educ. Chang. 12, 1–23. doi: 10.1007/s10833-010-9140-z

Purpura, D., Baroody, A., Eiland, M., and Reid, E. (2016). Fostering first graders’ reasoning strategies with basic sums: the value of guided instruction. Elem. Sch. J. 117, 72–100. doi: 10.1086/687809

Pyle, A., and Danniels, E. (2016). A continuum of play-based learning: the role of the teacher in play-based pedagogy and the fear of hijacking play. Early Educ. Dev. 23, 274–289. doi: 10.1080/10409289.2016.1220771

Pyle, A., DeLuca, C., and Danniels, E. (2017). A Scoping Review of Research on Play-Based Pedagogies in Kindergarten Education. Rev. Educ. 5, 311–351. doi: 10.1002/rev3.3097

Pyle, A., DeLuca, C., Danniels, E., and Wickstrom, H. (2020). A Model for Assessment in Play-Based Kindergarten Education. Am. Educ. Res. J. 57, 2251–2292. doi: 10.3102/0002831220908800

Queensland Government (n.d.). Foundation Paper: Age appropriate pedagogies for the early years of schooling. Available online at: https://earlychildhood.qld.gov.au/earlyYears/Documents/foundation-paper.pdf (accessed July, 2021).

Roskos, K. A., Christie, J. F., Widman, S., and Holding, A. (2010). Three decades in: priming for meta-analysis in play-literacy research. J. Early Child. Lit. 10, 55–96. doi: 10.3945/ajcn.110.000547

Schwartz, M. S., Sadler, P. M., Sonnert, G., and Tai, R. H. (2009). Depth versus breadth: how content coverage in high school science courses relates to later success in college science coursework. Sci. Educ. 93, 798–826. doi: 10.1002/sce.20328

Scottish Government (2013). Play strategy for Scotland: Our vision. Available online at: https://www2.gov.scot/resource/0042/00425722.pdf (accessed July, 2021).

Sinnema, C., Sewell, A., and Milligan, A. (2011). Evidence-informed collaborative inquiry for improving teaching and learning. Asia Pac. J. Teach. Educ. 39, 247–261. doi: 10.1080/1359866X.2011.597050

Smith, S. (2015). Playing to engage: Fostering engagement for children and teachers in low socioeconomic regions through science and mathematics play-based learning. Ph.D. thesis. Fremantle: University of Notre Dame Australia.

Tan, J. C. L., and Chapman, A. (2016). Project-Based Learning for Academically-Able Students: Hwa Chong Institution in Singapore. Netherlands: Sense Publishers.

UNESCO (2016). Global Education Monitoring Report: Education for people and planet: creating sustainable futures for all (ED-2016/WS/33/Rev). Paris: UNESCO digital library.

UNESCO (n.d.). Viewpoint: How to foster global citizenship through education. Paris: UNESCO.

United Nations Human Rights (1989). Convention on the Rights of the Child. Geneva: United Nations Human Rights.

van der Heijden, H. R. M. A., Beijaard, D., Geldens, J. J. M., and Popeijus, H. L. (2018). Understanding teachers as change agents: an investigation of primary school teachers’ self-perception. J. Educ. Chang. 19:347. doi: 10.1007/s10833-018-9320-9

Verner, J., and Lay, W. H. (2010). “Invoking the L in the scholarship of teaching and learning,” in Engaging Student Voices in the Study of Teaching and Learning , eds C. Werder and M. M. Otis (Sterling: Stylus).

Vincent-Lancrin, S., Jacotin, G., Urgel, J., Kar, S., and González-Sancho, C. (2017). Measuring Innovation in Education: A Journey to the Future. Paris: OECD.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). The Role of Play in Development. Mind in Society: Development of Higher Psychological Processes, eds M Cole, V. John-Steiner, and S. Scribner., E. Souberman Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 92–104. doi: 10.2307/j.ctvjf9vz4.12.

Wall, S., Litjens, I., and Taguman, M. (2015). Pedagogy in early childhood education and care (ECEC): An international comparative study of approaches and policies: Research brief. London: Department for Education.

Watkins, D., and Biggs, J. B. (2001). “The paradox of the Chinese learner and beyond,” in Teaching the Chinese learner: Psychological and pedagogical perspective , eds D. Watkins and J. B. Biggs (Hong Kong: Comparative Education Research Centre), 3–23. doi: 10.1007/978-90-481-3840-1_1

Weisberg, D., Hirsh-Pasek, K., Golinkoff, R., Kittredge, A., and Klahr, D. (2016). Guided play: principles and Practice. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 25, 177–182. doi: 10.1177/0963721416645512

Weisberg, D. S., Hirsh-Pasek, K., and Golinkoff, R. M. (2013). Guided play: where curricular goals meet a playful pedagogy. Mind Brain Educ. 7, 104–112. doi: 10.1111/mbe.12015

Whitebread, D., Basilio, M., Kuvalja, M., and Verma, M. (2012). The Importance of Play. Belgium: Toy Industries of Europe.

Wing, L. A. (1995). Play is Not the Work of the Child: young Children’s Perceptions of Work and Play. Early Child. Res. Q. 10:223. doi: 10.1016/j.chiabu.2019.104088

Woodhead, M., and Moss, P. (eds) (2007). Early Childhood and Primary Education: Transitions in the Lives of Young Children. Early Childhood in Focus (2). Milton Keynes: Open University.

World Health Organization [WHO] (2020). Improving early childhood development: WHO guideline. Geneva: World Health Organization.

Zhao, Y. (2015). Lessons that matter: What should we learn from Asia? (Mitchell Institute policy paper no. 04/2015). Melbourne: Mitchell Institute for Health and Education Policy.

Zosh, J. M., Hirsh-Pasek, K., Hopkins, E. J., Jensen, H., Liu, C., Neale, D., et al. (2018). Accessing the Inaccessible: redefining Play as a Spectrum. Front. Psychol. 9:1124. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01124

Zosh, J. M., Hopkins, E. J., Jensen, H., Liu, C., Neale, D., Hirsh-Pasek, K., et al. (2017). Learning through play: A review of the evidence. Denmark: LEGO Foundation.

Keywords : education policy, elementary, primary school, framework, learning through play, pedagogy, teaching

Citation: Parker R, Thomsen BS and Berry A (2022) Learning Through Play at School – A Framework for Policy and Practice. Front. Educ. 7:751801. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2022.751801

Received: 02 August 2021; Accepted: 27 January 2022; Published: 17 February 2022.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2022 Parker, Thomsen and Berry. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Rachel Parker, [email protected]

† These authors have contributed equally to this work and share first authorship

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

• Kedarnath MLA Shaila Rani Rawat Dies At 68
• Alert For iPhone Users: Government Warns Of "Transnational Scam"
• "Make No Mistake, Russia Failing In This War": Joe Biden Slams Vladimir Putin
• 18 Killed As Double-Decker Bus Rams Milk Tanker On Lucknow-Agra Expressway
• Days After India Visit, Bangladesh PM In China To Hold Talks With Xi Jinping
• Change Font Size A A
• Change Language हिंदी | Hindi বাঙালি | Bengali தமிழ் | Tamil
• Focus on Story
• Dark Theme Light Theme

Study Abroad: How Education Loans Unlock Global Opportunities For Students

Study abroad: education loans ease the burden by covering various expenses such as tuition fees, accommodation, travel costs, and other necessary expenditures..

For many Indian students, pursuing higher education abroad is a cherished aspiration. It opens doors to diverse cultures, global perspectives, and top-notch education. However, the hefty costs associated with tuition fees, living expenses, and other essentials often pose a significant constraint. Education loans provide a crucial solution, offering financial support that enables students to pursue their dreams of studying overseas.

Key Benefits Of Education Loans For Studying Abroad

Education loans ease the burden by covering various expenses such as tuition fees, accommodation, travel costs, and other necessary expenditures. This support ensures that students can focus on their studies without immediate financial concerns.

Eligibility Criteria For Education Loans

To qualify for an education loan in India for studying abroad, applicants need Indian citizenship and an admission or acceptance letter from a recognized international institution. Lenders may also consider age limits and academic qualifications.

Leading Education Loan Providers In India

Several banks and non-banking financial companies (NBFCs) in India offer education loans for international studies.

State Bank of India (SBI) : It offers loans covering a wide range of expenses for undergraduate, master's, and doctoral programs, ensuring comprehensive financial support.  Its Global ED-Vantage Scheme offers loans ranging from Rs 7.50 lakh to Rs 1.5 crore.

HDFC Credila: Provides loans for study destinations like the USA, Canada, and Germany, with streamlined processes and collateral options.

Axis Bank: Provides internal financing options to Indian students looking to study abroad or within India.

Punjab National Bank (PNB) : Provides financial support through schemes like "Udaan" for undergraduate, graduate, and post-graduate studies abroad.

Canara Bank: Offers loans for various courses including job-oriented and technical fields, covering tuition, housing, and travel expenses.

Selection Of Education Loan

When selecting an education loan, students should consider factors such as interest rates, repayment terms, tax benefits, and processing fees. Government-owned institutions often offer lower interest rates.

Track Education News , Exam updates , Campus , Study Abroad related news live on NDTV.com

• Notifications
• Web Stories
• TV Schedule
• Big Bonus REGISTER NOW
• मध्य प्रदेश

Social Security

Disability benefits | how you qualify ( en español ), how you qualify.

To qualify for Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) benefits, you must:

• Have worked in jobs covered by Social Security.
• Have a medical condition that meets Social Security's strict definition of disability .

In general, we pay monthly benefits to people who are unable to work for a year or more because of a disability. Generally, there is a 5-month waiting period and we’ll pay your 1st benefit the 6th full month after the date we find your disability began.

We may pay Social Security disability benefits for as many as 12 months before you apply if we find you had a disability during that time and you meet all other requirements.

Benefits usually continue until you can work again on a regular basis. There are also several special rules, called work incentives, that provide continued benefits and health care coverage to help you make the transition back to work.

If you are receiving SSDI benefits when you reach full retirement age , your disability benefits automatically convert to retirement benefits, but the amount remains the same.

How Much Work Do You Need?

In addition to meeting our definition of disability , you must have worked long enough — and recently enough — under Social Security to qualify for disability benefits.

Social Security work credits are based on your total yearly wages or self-employment income. You can earn up to 4 credits each year.

The amount needed for a work credit changes from year to year . In 2024, for example, you earn 1 credit for each $1,730 in wages or self-employment income. When you've earned $6,920 you've earned your 4 credits for the year.

The number of work credits you need to qualify for disability benefits depends on your age when your disability begins. Generally, you need 40 credits, 20 of which were earned in the last 10 years ending with the year your disability begins. However, younger workers may qualify with fewer credits .

For more information on whether you qualify, refer to How You Earn Credits .

What We Mean by Disability

The definition of disability under Social Security is different than other programs. We pay only for total disability. No benefits are payable for partial disability or for short-term disability .

We consider you to have a qualifying disability under our rules if all the following are true:

• You cannot do work at the substantial gainful activity (SGA) level because of your medical condition.
• You cannot do work you did previously or adjust to other work because of your medical condition.
• Your condition has lasted or is expected to last for at least 1 year or to result in death.

This is a strict definition of disability. Social Security program rules assume that working families have access to other resources to provide support during periods of short-term disabilities. These include workers' compensation, insurance, savings, and investments.

How We Decide If You Have a Qualifying Disability

If you have enough work to qualify for disability benefits, we use a step-by-step process involving 5 questions to determine if you have a qualifying disability. The 5 questions are:

1. Are you working?

We generally use earnings guidelines to evaluate whether your work activity is SGA. If you are working in 2024 and your earnings average more than $1,550 ($2,590 if you’re blind) a month, you generally cannot be considered to have a disability.

If you are not working or are working but not performing SGA, we will send your application to the Disability Determination Services (DDS) office. This office will make the decision about your medical condition. The DDS uses Steps 2-5 below to make the decision.

2. Is your condition "severe"?

Your condition must significantly limit your ability to do basic work-related activities, such as lifting, standing, walking, sitting, or remembering – for at least 12 months. If it does not, we will find that you do not have a qualifying disability.

If your condition does interfere with basic work-related activities, we go to Step 3.

3. Is your condition found in the list of disabling conditions?

For each of the major body systems, we maintain a list of medical conditions we consider severe enough to prevent a person from doing SGA. If your condition is not on the list, we must decide if it is as severe as a medical condition that is on the list. If it is, we will find that you have a qualifying disability. If it is not, we then go to Step 4.

We have 2 initiatives designed to expedite our processing of new disability claims:

• Compassionate Allowances : Certain cases that usually qualify for disability can be allowed as soon as the diagnosis is confirmed. Examples include acute leukemia, Lou Gehrig’s disease (ALS), and pancreatic cancer.
• Quick Disability Determinations : We use computer screening to identify cases with a high probability of allowance.

For more information about our disability claims process, visit our Benefits for People with Disabilities website.

4. Can you do the work you did previously?

At this step, we decide if your medical impairment(s) prevents you from performing any of your past work. If it doesn’t, we’ll decide you don’t have a qualifying disability. If it does, we proceed to Step 5.

5. Can you do any other type of work?

If you can’t do the work you did in the past, we look to see if there is other work you could do despite your medical impairment(s).

We consider your medical conditions, age, education, past work experience, and any transferable skills you may have. If you can’t do other work, we’ll decide you qualify for disability benefits. If you can do other work, we’ll decide that you don’t have a qualifying disability and your claim will be denied.

Special Situations

Most people who receive disability benefits are workers who qualify on their own records and meet the work and disability requirements we have just described. However, there are some situations you may not know about:

• If You're Blind or Have Low Vision - How We Can Help
• If You Are the Survivor
• Benefits for Children with Disabilities
• Benefits for Wounded Warriors & Veterans

Special Rules for People Who Are Blind or Have Low Vision

We consider you to be legally blind under our rules if your vision cannot be corrected to better than 20/200 in your better eye. We will also consider you legally blind if your visual field is 20 degrees or less, even with a corrective lens. Many people who meet the legal definition of blindness still have some sight and may be able to read large print and get around without a cane or a guide dog.

If you do not meet the legal definition of blindness, you may still qualify for disability benefits. This may be the case if your vision problems alone or combined with other health problems prevent you from working.

There are several special rules for people who are blind that recognize the severe impact of blindness on a person's ability to work. For example, the monthly earnings limit for people who are blind is generally higher than the limit that applies to non-blind workers with disabilities.

In 2024, the monthly earnings limit is $2,590.

Benefits for Surviving Spouses with Disabilities

When a worker dies, their surviving spouse or surviving divorced spouse may be eligible for benefits if they:

• Are between ages 50 and 60.
• Have a medical condition that meets our definition of disability for adults and the disability started before or within 7 years of the worker's death.

Surviving spouses and surviving divorced spouses cannot apply online for survivors benefits. If they want to apply for these benefits, they should contact Social Security immediately at 1-800-772-1213 (TTY 1-800-325-0778 ) to request an appointment.

To speed up the application process, they should complete an Adult Disability Report and have it available at the time of their appointment.

For these benefits, we use the same definition of disability as we do for workers.

A child under age 18 may have a disability, but we don't need to consider the child's disability when deciding if they qualify for benefits as a dependent. The child's benefits normally stop at age 18 unless they are a full-time elementary or high school student until age 19 or have a qualifying disability.

Children who were receiving benefits as a minor child on a parent’s Social Security record may be eligible to continue receiving benefits on that parent’s record upon reaching age 18 if they have a qualifying disability.

Adults with a Disability that Began Before Age 22

An adult who has a disability that began before age 22 may be eligible for benefits if their parent is deceased or starts receiving retirement or disability benefits. We consider this a "child's" benefit because it is paid on a parent's Social Security earnings record.

The Disabled Adult Child (DAC) — who may be an adopted child, or, in some cases, a stepchild, grandchild, or step grandchild — must be unmarried, age 18 or older, have a qualified disability that started before age 22, and meet the definition of disability for adults.

It is not necessary that the DAC ever worked. Benefits are paid based on the parent's earnings record.

• A DAC must not have substantial earnings. The amount of earnings we consider substantial increases each year. In 2024, this means working and earning more than $1,550 (or $2,590 if you’re blind) a month.

What if the child is already receiving SSI or disability benefits on their own record and turns 18?

A child already receiving SSI benefits or disability benefits on his or her own record should check to see if DAC benefits may be payable on a parent's earnings record when they reach age 18. Higher benefits might be payable and entitlement to Medicare may be possible.

How do we decide if a child over age 18 qualifies for SSDI benefits?

If a child is age 18 or older, we will evaluate their disability the same way we would evaluate the disability for any adult. We send the application to the Disability Determination Services (DDS) in your state that completes the disability decision for us.

What happens if the DAC gets married?

In most cases, DAC benefits end if the child gets married. There are exceptions, such as marriage to another DAC, when the benefits are allowed to continue. The rules vary depending on the situation.

Contact a Social Security representative at 1-800-772-1213 to report changes in marital status and to find out if the benefits can continue. If you are deaf or hard of hearing, call TTY number at 1-800-325-0778 .

To speed up the application process, complete an Adult Disability Report and have it available at the time of your appointment.

Related Information

• Supplemental Security Income (SSI) for Children
• Family Benefits

Publications

• Disability Benefits
• Disability Starter Kits
• If You Are Blind or Have Low Vision—How We Can Help
• SSI Child Disability Starter Kit (for children under age 18)
• Other Disability Publications

University of Arizona Global Campus' 2024 graduation ceremonies in Glendale

• Top products
• BIM Collaborate Pro
• Fusion extensions
• Flow Capture
• Flow Production Tracking
• View all products
• View Mobile Apps
• Collections
• Architecture, Engineering & Construction
• Product Design & Manufacturing
• Media & Entertainment
• Buying with Autodesk
• Pay as you go with Flex
• Special offers
• Industry solutions
• Educational access
• Product support
• System requirements
• Download your software
• File viewers
• Students and educators
• Installation
• Account management support
• Educational support
• Partner Finder
• Autodesk consulting
• Contact support

Certification

• Autodesk University
• Conferences and events
• Success planning
• Autodesk Community
• Developer Network
• Autodesk Customer Value
• ASEAN (English)
• Canada (English)
• Canada (Français)
• Deutschland
• Europe (English)
• Hong Kong (English)
• India (English)
• Latinoamérica
• Magyarország
• Middle East (English)
• New Zealand
• Singapore (English)
• South Africa (English)
• United Kingdom
• United States

Integrated BIM tools, including Revit, AutoCAD, and Civil 3D

Professional CAD/CAM tools built on Inventor and AutoCAD

Entertainment content creation tools, including 3ds Max and Maya

Autodesk Fusion for education

Bring next-generation workflows into your courses with an intuitive, modern 3D modeling, CAD, CAM, CAE, and PCB software platform that’s easy to learn and teach. Free for education. Available on PC, Mac, and Chromebook.

What is Autodesk Fusion?

Autodesk Fusion is a professional, full-scale integrated 3D modeling cloud-based CAD/CAM/CAE/PCB platform that lets you design and make anything. Some of the key Autodesk Fusion benefits for educators include:

• Review and manage student assignments.  Autodesk Fusion datasets can be shared with a web link and then viewed on any device. You can easily add markup, slice the model, add notations, and provide other feedback.
• Student teams collaboration. Fusion's collaboration features make easier for students to work on the same project – when a new version of a dataset is uploaded, it is immediately available to everyone collaborating on the project. 
• Get to machining faster. Get students to produce high-quality CNC machined parts, and additively manufacture builds with a wide range of integrated CNC and 3D printers ready to simulate, test and prototype designs.

Autodesk Fusion is free for eligible educators and students . Available on Mac, PC, and Chromebook.

Autodesk Fusion features

Flexible 3D CAD

Autodesk Fusion enables you to explore many iterations quickly with easy-to-use CAD software.

Integrated CAD/CAM

Produce high-quality CNC machined parts, and additively manufacture builds using FFF or PBF for metal 3D printing.

Unified PCB design

Gain all the advantages of a full-featured schematic capture, electronics design, and mechanical CAD with Autodesk Fusion.

Seamless 3D simulation

Test your designs to ensure they survive real world conditions. Simulate digitally and reduce prototyping costs.

Explorative generative design tools

Explore many manufacturing-ready outcomes meeting your design specifications through generative design.

Instant-on data management

Use integrated cloud collaboration tools to bring teams together and manage product data.

A new CAD/CAM/CNC curriculum from Haas and Autodesk is here!

What educators say about using autodesk fusion:.

“If there’s aspects which I feel that could be redeveloped or tweaked, I can communicate with the students… that’s one of the things I really I appreciate with Fusion, is that ability to encourage collaboration and sharing of design practice.”

– Andrew Hewitt, Aston University Engineering Academy

"With Autodesk Fusion students were spending less time at the desks and more time on the machines."

– Jacob T. Tucker, CTE Instructor at Pasadena City College

"One of the things that I really enjoy about Autodesk Fusion is that it is a very short on-ramp, and we really get to move through a lot of physical projects quickly ."

– Cady Geer, CTE instructor at Sunset High School

Autodesk Fusion resources for educators

Get started with autodesk fusion.

Master the basic concepts of Autodesk Fusion with these self-paced lessons. Each path includes videos, step-by-step tutorials, and downloadable 3D models.

Help students gain confidence and stand out by earning certifications in CAD, CAM, design-to-manufacture workflows, and generative design.

'Fusion Fundamentals' course

Fusion Fundamentals is a free 12-hour course aimed at training educators how to use, teach, and implement Autodesk Fusion into their classroom. 

Connect with Autodesk

Educators, are you interested to start using Autodesk Fusion in your classroom and accelerate your students' learning? Connect with us and we will help you to get up to speed on teaching Autodesk Fusion quickly.

You’ll get high-quality, ready-to-use learning pathways and projects that make it easier to teach CAD/CAM/CAE and engineering concepts in new and innovative ways with Autodesk Fusion.

This offer is available to secondary educators in the US and UK and to post-secondary educators in the US, UK, IN, DE, and JP who are teaching engineering, manufacturing, or machining. Requests are subject to availability, which is determined by Autodesk. Offer is fulfilled by an applicable Autodesk Learning Partner.

Privacy | Do not sell or share my personal information | Cookie preferences | Report noncompliance | Terms of use | Legal  |  © 2024 Autodesk Inc. All rights reserved