





































Educational Leadership and the E-Learning Paradigm


Global Partners in Education Journal                                                                                                  April 2012, Vol.2 No.1, pp. 12-24 

www.gpejournal.org                      ISSN 2163-758X 

 

 

12 

 

The Preparation of Globally Competent Teachers: 
A Comparison of American and Australian Education Policies and 

Perspectives 
 

Misty M Kirby 
 

University of Canberra, Australia 
 

Elizabeth O. Crawford 
 

University of North Carolina Wilmington, USA 
 

Abstract 
 

This study entailed a comparative analysis of the teacher preparation 
standards in the state of North Carolina, USA, and the new National 
Professional Standards for Teachers in Australia as related to the global 
competencies of licensed teachers. Specifically, the authors conducted a 
content analysis of the policies that govern teacher education and 
licensure relative to global competence. University faculty members in 
both regions were also interviewed to determine teacher educators’ 
perceptions of these policies.  Results indicate that much remains to align 
policy with practice, particularly as applied to the role of teacher educators 
in preparing their students per governmental requirements, as well as how 
states evaluate new teachers by professional standards.  Additionally, 
operationally defined, shared language regarding K-12 teachers’ global 
competence must be developed for use by all stakeholders. 

 
Introduction 

 
In 2010, U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan asserted: 
 

We must improve language learning and international education at all 
levels if our nation is to continue to lead in the global economy; to help 
bring security and stability to the world; and to build stronger and more 
productive ties with our neighbors. (para. 40) 
 

Secretary Duncan’s statement underscores the importance of American students’ global 
awareness and related skills needed for the workforce. Because teachers are largely 
responsible for such preparation, there is an urgent need to ensure that teachers, too, 
are globally competent. Despite this, some assert that schools (faculties) of education 
have been slow to incorporate teacher education competencies reflective of 
contemporary global issues and perspectives, as well as requisite 21st century literacy 
skills, within teacher preparation programs (e.g., Agnello, White, & Fryer, 2006). 
 



Global Partners in Education Journal                                                                                                  April 2012, Vol.2 No.1, pp. 12-24 

www.gpejournal.org                      ISSN 2163-758X 

 

 

13 

 

This study entailed a comparative analysis of the teacher preparation standards in the 
state of North Carolina (NC), USA, and in the state of New South Wales (NSW) in 
Australia, as related to the global competencies of licensed teachers. The authors also 
analyzed how teacher educators in NC and NSW interpret global competence in 
preservice teachers, including their role perception in facilitating the development of this 
competence (Crawford & Kirby, 2011).  Research questions guiding this study included: 
(1) What do state policies in North Carolina, USA and in New South Wales, Australia 
require in teacher preparation as related to the global competence of K-12 teachers? (2) 
How do teacher educators define global competence? (3) What do teacher educators 
perceive to be their roles in preparing teachers for global society? This paper 
specifically highlights research query one, what state and national policies require in 
teacher preparation as related to the dimensions of global competence of K-12 
teachers. A sub-question included: How do teacher educators interpret state and 
national policies and standards relating to the global competence of licensed teachers?   
A review of the literature on global competence resulted in predetermined knowledge- 
and skill-based competencies, as well as dispositional attributes, by which the authors 
analyzed the respective policy documents and teacher educators’ perceptions as 
elucidated through face-to-face interviews. 
  

 
Literature Review 

 
The preparation of teachers with a global perspective is considered an “absolute 
priority” (Burch, 1997, p. vii). This priority is reflected in numerous state and national 
standards in the U.S. and other nations. For example, in the U.S., the National Council 
for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) 2008 Standards mandate teacher 
preparation programs to infuse global perspectives in their programs, courses, field 
experiences, and other related areas. Specifically, Standard 4 pertaining to teachers’ 
abilities to work with diverse students states that “candidates must develop knowledge 
of diversity in the United States and the world, professional dispositions that respect and 
value differences, and skills for working with diverse populations…” as well as “reflect 
multicultural and global perspectives that draw on the histories, experiences, and 
representations of students and families from diverse populations” (NCATE, 2008, p. 
36). A few years earlier in their March 2005 Position Statement “Integrating a Global 
Perspective into Teacher Education,” the American Association of Colleges for Teacher 
Education (AACTE) also underscored the importance of preparing teachers for a global 
society in which they can teach successfully in multicultural settings and as they 
prepare young people for global citizenship (AACTE, 2005). There is, therefore, a 
common emphasis in U.S. policy statements on developing global perspectives and 
cross-cultural understandings in preservice teachers. Despite this emphasis, American 
teacher preparation programs continue to lack focus on the impact of 
internationalization on practice (Agnello et al., 2006). 
 
A similar emphasis on developing globally competent teachers is evident in Australia. In 
2008, Education Ministers across Australia, including the current Prime Minister Julia 



Global Partners in Education Journal                                                                                                  April 2012, Vol.2 No.1, pp. 12-24 

www.gpejournal.org                      ISSN 2163-758X 

 

 

14 

 

Gillard (who was then Deputy Prime Minister and Minster for Education) crafted the 
Melbourne Declaration on Educational Goals for Young Australians with explicit 
guidance for the nation’s education system to enable young people to remain 
competitive in our rapidly shrinking world.  While acknowledging challenges in educating 
all youngsters, this declaration centered around improving educational outcomes as a 
means to improve the lives of the younger Australian generation through equitable and 
excellent schools that nurture “successful learners, confident and creative individuals, 
and active and informed citizens … [who] are responsible global and local citizens” 
(Ministerial Council of Education, Employment, Training, and Youth Affairs, 2008, p. 7).  
 
To ensure success and competitiveness on a global level, Australian policymakers seek 
to improve student experiences by improving teacher quality. The Melbourne 
Declaration and National Partnership on Improving Teacher Quality provided the 
impetus for the National Professional Standards for Teachers, which were released in 
February, 2011 from the Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership 
(AITSL, 2011).  Prior to the release of these standards, the similar New South Wales’ 
Institute of Teacher (NSWIT) standards were the policy document of concern to the 
teacher educators in the Australian study. 
 
Measuring the impacts of a globally focused university education on future practice is 
considered challenging both conceptually and operationally (e.g., Stearns, 2009), 
largely due to the absence of standardized terminology. Nonetheless, the emphasis on 
global competencies in American and Australian teacher preparation programs merits 
examination.  Through a review of the literature, the authors developed a framework 
from which to analyze educational standards and teacher educators’ perceptions of 
global competence.  Dimensions of global competence were categorized by knowledge, 
skills, and dispositions, or competency domain (see Table 1). 
 
Table 1 
 
Dimensions of Global Competence by Knowledge, Skill, and Disposition 
 

Competency Domain Dimensions 

 
Knowledge 

 
global interdependence 
global issues and problems 
human diversity 
perspective consciousness 
technology knowledge 
understanding of interdisciplinary, global connections 

to curriculum 
world regions 
 
 



Global Partners in Education Journal                                                                                                  April 2012, Vol.2 No.1, pp. 12-24 

www.gpejournal.org                      ISSN 2163-758X 

 

 

15 

 

 
Skill 

 
creative thinking skills 
critical thinking skills 
communication skills with subcategories  

cross-cultural skills 
digital literacy skills 
second language skills 

social and political action skills 
 

Disposition comfort with ambiguity and unfamiliar situations 
concern for environment and sustainability 
curiosity 
empathy 
justice and fairness 
open-mindedness to new ideas and experiences 
self-awareness 
self and others as change agent 
value and respect for diversity 
 

Sources: Agnello, White, & Fryer (2006); Ambe (2006); Andrews (1999); Arida (2007); 
Asia Society (2009); Burch (1997); Campbell-Patton & Mortenson (2011); Dyer (2006); 
Hanvey (1982); Hunter (2004); Kagan & Stewart (2004); Kirkwood (2001); Marginson 
(1999); Merryfield (1995); Oxfam (2006); Pike & Selby (1988); Suárez-Orozco (2005) 
 

Methods 
 

In order to understand the policies that education agencies establish to support 
preservice teacher preparation in the area of global competence, the authors conducted 
a preliminary analysis of the NC standards, NSW standards, and the Australian national 
standards (AITSL). First, Leximancer, a software analytical tool that focuses on 
language processing, highlighted broad themes in the texts by identifying the context 
and providing the user with graphics on the relationships and meanings of the 
documents’ words.  Second, NVivo 8, a qualitative data analysis tool, was used to 
analyze both the NC policy document, as well as the Australian policy documents to 
determine how the standards fit into the competency areas that emerged from the 
review of the literature.   
 
The authors also studied NC and NSW teacher educators’ perceptions of their regions’ 
respective policy documents as pertaining to the global competence of licensed 
teachers.  A convenience sample of eight teacher educators, four from an NC university 
and four from a university located in the Australian Capital Territory (which utilized 
NSWIT as its accreditation body) participated in this study. They included teacher 
educators who prepare teachers across the K-12 spectrum. 
 
 



Global Partners in Education Journal                                                                                                  April 2012, Vol.2 No.1, pp. 12-24 

www.gpejournal.org                      ISSN 2163-758X 

 

 

16 

 

Approval for this study was obtained from the University of North Carolina, Wilmington, 
USA and the University of Canberra, Australia.  The Human Subjects Committee in the 
U.S. determined that this study was in compliance with the appropriate ethical 
standards and was exempted from formal review. In Australia, the Committee approved 
the work to gather this research through formal review. Participation in this study was 
optional and participants could withdraw at any time without penalty. 
 

Data Collection and Analysis 
 
Primary policy documents were used to examine the requirements in teacher 
preparation as related to global competence. Standardized, open-ended, face-to-face 
interviews afforded additional data.  The policy documents and interview data were 
analyzed through content analysis. The program Leximancer was utilized to analyze the 
text across each of the two policy documents: the NC Professional Teaching Standards, 
and the Graduate Teaching Standards, which is the entry level accreditation for 
teachers meeting the Professional Teaching Standards through NSWIT. After the 
National Professional Standards for Teachers was released, this document, too, was 
analyzed using Leximancer.  The analysis was performed to determine concepts and 
themes regarding the mandated preparation of preservice teachers in the area of global 
competence.  Finally, both NC Professional Teaching Standards and the National 
Professional Standards for Teachers (Australia) were further analyzed using NVivo 8 in 
order to determine connectivity and relevancy to the various global competencies as 
defined and refined in this study. 
 

Results 
 
What do state policies in North Carolina, USA and in New South Wales, Australia 
require in teacher preparation as related to the global competence of K-12 
teachers?  
 
Global competence in the context of this study is based on a review of the literature and 
includes specific knowledge, skills, and dispositions.  In the U.S., growing emphasis on 
the global competencies of K-12 teachers is evident in the professional standards at the 
state and institutional levels. In June 2007, for example, NC revised its NC Professional 
Teacher Standards (NCPTS), creating a “new vision of teaching” (NCPTSC, 2007, 
section A New Vision of Teaching). These standards highlight the ability of classroom 
teachers to be explicit about embedding global awareness in the core content areas and 
to ensure that their students are “globally competitive for work and postsecondary 
education and are prepared for life in the 21st century” (NCPTSC, 2007, section 
Standard 1). Although Standard 1 is skill-focused, none of these skills are explicitly 
related to global competence as defined in this study.  Further, NC teachers must 
demonstrate cultural awareness and understanding of the role of human cultures in 
shaping global issues (NCPTSC, 2007, section Standard 2), as well as participate in 
professional development that “reflects a global view of educational practices”  
(NCPTSC, 2007, section Standard 5). The language of the NCPTSC reflects elements 



Global Partners in Education Journal                                                                                                  April 2012, Vol.2 No.1, pp. 12-24 

www.gpejournal.org                      ISSN 2163-758X 

 

 

17 

 

of 21st century teaching and learning as outlined by the Partnership for 21st Century 
Skills of which NC is a partner state (p21, 2010). The North Carolina Standards for 
Elementary Grades Teacher Candidates reflect this expectation for the global 
competence of preservice teachers (NCPDI, 2009). 
 
Across the globe, Australia is well known for its global education initiatives.  Spurred on 
by federal and local money for innovative teaching, schools have taken the charge 
seriously to prepare their students so they may contribute to society on a global level 
(ACTDET, 2007; MCEECDYA, 1999; MCEETYA, 2008).   The Global Education Project 
(2008) introduced a framework for global education in schools.  This work built on a 
statement from the Australia Government’s foreign-aid program (AusAID) based on the 
input of more than 100 organizations and individuals entitled Global Perspectives: A 
Statement on Global Education for Australian Schools.  The AITSL National Standards 
aim to demonstrate Australia’s commitment to teacher-quality improvement grounded 
on the principle that teachers have a “direct impact upon student achievement” (AITSL, 
2011, p. 1).   
 
In NC, there is a clear focus on students, teachers, and instruction throughout the NC 
Professional Teaching Standards.  Teachers are expected to: 
 

Relate content to other disciplines, promote global awareness and its 
relevance to the subjects they teach…demonstrate their knowledge of 
the history of diverse cultures and their role in shaping global 
issues…facilitate instruction encouraging all students to use 21st 
Century skills [global awareness is in the content]…and participate in 
continued, high quality professional development that reflects a global 
view of educational practices. (NCPTS, 2007, pp. 1-4) 
 

Students (as connected with the key terms teachers and instruction) emerged as the 
strongest connecting theme across the standards document, with students being 
referred to 59 times in connection with teachers and instruction, establishing the 
importance of the student-teacher relationship in the role of instruction.  Learning 
emerged as the second strongest theme as it related to the student, data, and needs.  
This theme is logical in light of learning being student-focused and data-driven, as is 
required with federal mandates through the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001. 
NCLB (2002) proposed that every child can learn and schools would be held 
accountable for that learning as measured by state-sponsored examinations.  One of 
the goals of NCLB is to increase student achievement so that students become more 
productive citizens and are able to compete in today’s global environment.  Importantly, 
there is a balance between what teachers need to know (knowledge), what they are 
able to do (skills) and the attitudes they should bring to the classroom (dispositions). 
 
The term global is cited seven times throughout the five standards in the NC document 
(NCPTS, 2007), where the term mostly relates to the content taught and developing 
awareness in students that is cross disciplinary in nature. Standard 3 uses the term 



Global Partners in Education Journal                                                                                                  April 2012, Vol.2 No.1, pp. 12-24 

www.gpejournal.org                      ISSN 2163-758X 

 

 

18 

 

global four of the seven times and directs teachers to “recognize the 
interconnectedness of content areas/disciplines” as part of the mandate that “teachers 
know the content they teach” (p. 3).  Further, teachers are to “promote global 
awareness and its relevance to the subjects they teach” (p. 3).  Finally, teachers are 
expected to understand the overall standard course of study and be able to work with 
students in connecting that content to the 21st century content, “which includes global 
awareness; financial, economic, business and entrepreneurial literacy; civic literacy; and 
health awareness” (p. 3).   
 
Regarding knowledge-based competencies, NC teachers are expected to have an 
awareness of human diversity, perspective consciousness (or recognition of different 
perspectives or points of view; see Hanvey, 1982), technology knowledge, 
understanding of interdisciplinary, global connections to the curriculum, as well as 
knowledge of world regions.  Additionally, teachers are expected to “recognize the 
interconnectedness of content areas/disciplines” (p.3), which arguably requires both 
creative and critical thinking on the teachers’ part, as well as the ability to communicate 
effectively (digitally and non-digitally) with those of different cultures.  Teachers must 
“help students develop critical thinking and problem solving skills” (p. 4), “establish a 
respectful environment for a diverse population of students” (p. 3), as well as “integrate 
and utilize technology in their instruction” (p. 4).  The dispositional competencies, those 
most difficult to measure, are not explicitly required, although open-mindedness, self-
awareness and value and respect for diversity can be inferred through one of its 
standards.  Standard 2 requires that “teachers establish a respectful environment for a 
diverse population of students” (p. 2) and advocates that “teachers embrace diversity in 
the school community and the world” (p. 2).  
 
In contrast, the AITSL National Professional Standards for Teachers do not explicitly 
address global competence throughout its seven standards at the Graduate Teacher 
Stage. The clear focus in this document is on knowledge and skill.  Interestingly, neither 
the word global nor the notion captured by this term appear in the Graduate Teacher 
Stage standards or focus areas (AITSL, 2011). 
 
Referring to knowledge-based competencies, Australian graduate teachers are 
expected to display competence in human diversity and, arguably, perspective 
consciousness and world regions.  Teachers will “demonstrate knowledge of teaching 
strategies that are responsive to the learning strengths and needs of students from 
diverse linguistic, cultural, religious and socioeconomic backgrounds” (AITSL, 2011, p. 
8), as well as “demonstrate broad knowledge and understanding of the impact of 
culture, cultural identity and linguistic background on the education of students from 
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander backgrounds” (p. 9).  Importantly, teachers also will 
focus on understanding and respecting “Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to 
promote reconciliation between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians” (p. 11) 
through a demonstration of a “broad knowledge of, understanding of and respect for 
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander histories, cultures and languages” (p. 11).  It can 
be argued that in order to demonstrate this focus area, a teacher must be able to have 



Global Partners in Education Journal                                                                                                  April 2012, Vol.2 No.1, pp. 12-24 

www.gpejournal.org                      ISSN 2163-758X 

 

 

19 

 

both perspective consciousness and knowledge of world regions, which the authors 
deduced from the literature as additional knowledge-based competencies. 
 
Australia’s Graduate Teachers must “implement teaching strategies using ICT to 
expand curriculum learning opportunities for students” (AITSL, 2011, p. 11), so 
technology knowledge is assumed as teachers are required to demonstrate skill in fitting 
technology into their content and pedagogical knowledge.  Skill-based competencies 
are more included as teachers are required to have cross-cultural skills in order to fulfill 
a focus area of Standard 2, “Know the content and how to teach it” (p. 10).  Like their 
NC counterparts, graduate teachers in Australia must demonstrate cross-cultural skills 
in order to “understand and respect Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to 
promote reconciliation between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians ” (p. 11).  
Interestingly, under the old NSWIT standards, students from non-English speaking 
backgrounds were included, but this aspect did not make it to the national document. 
Graduate teachers in Australia are directed to value and respect diversity as they are in 
NC. 
 
How do teacher educators interpret state and national policies relating to the 
global competence of licensed teachers?    

 
Like classroom teachers, teacher educators are inclined to interpret policies as the 
policies align with their existing beliefs and practices (Merryfield, 1997).  How teacher 
educators perceive the policies and standards that govern their preparation of teachers 
was determined by interviewing four teacher educators in each region. Participants 
were asked, “What are your perceptions of [your respective] education policies and 
standards in terms of preparing teachers to be globally competent?”  
 
One American teacher educator observed that state policies had not yet trickled “down 
to the university level” and that even if they do, “thoughtful, insightful professors” may 
not adhere to the state mandates.  Regarding the state’s policy, this teacher educator 
declared, “I don’t know how much it really impacts us.”  Another American teacher 
educator declared that the teacher standards were “kind of pie-in-the-sky, put together 
by committee, and I just haven’t found them very helpful.”  A third American teacher 
educator supported this idea: “We, the state in general, have no clue what we’re doing. 
We have this amorphous, ‘We’re going to prepare teachers to prepare students for the 
international world’ and we have no clue what that means.”  Further, a fourth teacher 
educator spoke of his concern regarding the mismatch between curriculum and 
assessment, although he did acknowledge that the curriculum in NC was currently 
undergoing alignment to the standards.  He, too, expressed a concern over the 
resources provided in schools to help teachers meet these new standards, “the 
resources behind that [the mandate]…at the district level may be iffy or scattered…but 
we really don’t have a choice.  It’s now what we’re supposed to be doing and being 
evaluated by.”   
 



Global Partners in Education Journal                                                                                                  April 2012, Vol.2 No.1, pp. 12-24 

www.gpejournal.org                      ISSN 2163-758X 

 

 

20 

 

Australian teacher educators also expressed concern over how the policies and 
standards of governing bodies in education are implemented and evaluated. One 
Australian teacher educator commented: 
 

While I understand the need to have graduate teacher standards and to 
have people who are making sure that there’s a kind of broad spectrum of 
skills and knowledge and attributes the teachers are required to embed in 
their courses, I can’t stand the way it actually comes out in practice and 
the way it gets translated into checklists and dot points which just 
encourage compliance more than honoring it in the spirit so I’ve got 
nothing to say …[about explicitly addressing NSWIT requirements] apart 
from I know that I do it in the spirit of compliance. 

 
This checklist mentality was voiced by another Australian teacher educator who 
expressed concern that some of the dispositions of global competence are often 
overlooked because of the difficult issue of how to assess these qualities in teacher 
candidates: 
 

they [NSWIT] weren’t looking for that as a tick…they just were looking at 
the key learning areas, in other words maths, science, literature, SOSE 
(studies of society and environment), science, tech ed, etc., and as long 
as you’ve got those then that’s fine – and behavior management. 
 

In contrast, another Australian teacher educator asserted that policy set by state 
standards are valuable in that they: 
 

helped to refocus…and to put some accountability into teacher education 
courses; that we’re not just a law onto ourselves – we just teach our units 
according to what we want but that there is a set of broader goals and 
outcomes out there that we need to make sure we’re achieving. 
 

Discussion 

 

Teacher preparation program standards outline the knowledge, skills, and dispositions 
required of licensed teachers. It is evident following a review of the American and 
Australian documents that the foci differ.  Reflecting the impact of globalization on 
education policy, contemporary teacher program standards in NC address explicitly the 
importance of global competencies of K-12 teachers, whereas teacher program 
standards to date in Australia are not explicit regarding the ways in which new teachers 
must be trained in order help their own students “compete in the global economy on 
knowledge and innovation” (MCEETYA, 2008, p. 4). 
 
Although the NCPTS have been quite explicit regarding the necessity of K12 teachers’ 
abilities to build global competency in their own students, teacher educators are 
struggling with what that means for them, owing, perhaps, to little explicit guidance on 



Global Partners in Education Journal                                                                                                  April 2012, Vol.2 No.1, pp. 12-24 

www.gpejournal.org                      ISSN 2163-758X 

 

 

21 

 

meaningful ways to nurture global competency in their classes and degree programs, as 
well as instruments to measure the knowledge, skills, and dispositions required when 
preservice teachers are applying for certification to meet the Professional Standards. 
 
In contrast, NSWIT and AITSL standards tend to focus on demonstrable behaviors 
rather than knowledge and dispositions that are less tangible. Here, there appears to be 
disagreement among faculty members regarding what is the most appropriate way to 
help train the next generation of teachers.  How will this perception change as the 
National Standards document becomes fully implemented? Moreover, what types of 
instruments are appropriate to use in order to assess the knowledge, skills, and 
dispositions needed to earn accreditation and advance as a teacher? These questions 
and more are yet to be explored. 
 
While teacher educators in both countries acknowledge benefits and drawbacks of their 
respective government standards, they seem to value very little the attempt to 
standardize pre-service teacher education.  Perhaps more involvement of the governing 
body’s part to draw a wider swath of stakeholders when creating policy documents 
would aid in better communication. Since the locations under study have existing 
policies in place, the governments and schools of education may wish to provide 
workshops discussing the implementation of the policies in an effort to refine and clarify 
areas of confusion.  Further study of the relationships between government and schools 
(faculties) of education could provide a snapshot of the nature in which these two 
institutions collaborate.  
 

Conclusion 
 
In this study, teacher educators in NC, USA and NSW, Australia highlighted the 
disconnect between what governments and accrediting bodies are seeking in beginning 
teachers and the work that goes on in teacher training in these institutions.  Based on 
this research, the authors conclude that stakeholders and policy makers have much 
work ahead of them in conceptualizing, codifying, and evaluating teacher preparation as 
related to global competence. The participants in this research study, and the extant 
body of literature presented, demonstrated a need to develop a consistent, shared 
language regarding global competence, both in literature and in policy.  Finally, working 
with teacher educators may be of benefit in order for these teachers to be involved, be 
heard, and add value and authenticity to the process in an effort to be explicit about 
their role in preparing teachers for a global society.  It is hoped that the findings of this 
study illuminate gaps where more discussion and action are needed regarding 
alignment between policy and practice for teacher educators and preservice teachers. 
 

References 
 
Agnello, M. F., White, D. R., & Fryer, W. (2006). Toward twenty-first century global 

citizenship: A teacher education curriculum. Social Studies Research and 
Practice, 1, 312-326. 



Global Partners in Education Journal                                                                                                  April 2012, Vol.2 No.1, pp. 12-24 

www.gpejournal.org                      ISSN 2163-758X 

 

 

22 

 

Ambe, E. B. (2006). Fostering multicultural appreciation in pre-service teachers through 
multicultural curricular transformation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22, 690-
699. 

American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (AACTE). (2005). Integrating a 
global perspective into teacher education position statement. Retrieved from 
http://aacte.org/About-Us/Governance/resolutions.html#22 

Andrews, D. (1999).  Educating for the future – multicultural perspectives and SOSE 
programs. Ethos Annual, 7, 29-34. 

Arida, H. (2007). Getting to the five C’s: Strategies for cross-cultural competence, 
connectedness, and collaboration. International Agenda, 6, 10-13. 

Asia Society. (2009). What is global competence? Retrieved from 
http://sites.asiasociety.org/education/globalcompetence/ 

Australian Capital Territory. Dept. of Education and Training (ACTDET).  (2007).  Every 
chance to learn : curriculum framework for ACT schools : preschool to year 
10  ACT Dept. of Education and Training, Stirling, A.C.T.  

Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership (AITSL). (2011). National 
professional standards for teachers.  Retrieved from 
http://www.teacherstandards.aitsl.edu.au/ 

Burch, B. (1997). Introduction. In M. Merryfield, E. Jarchow, & S. Pickert (Eds.) 
Preparing teachers to teach global perspectives: A handbook for teacher 
educators (pp. vii-ix). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc. 

Campbell-Patton, C., & Mortenson, D. (2011). World Savvy global competency 
framework. Retrieved from 
http://worldsavvy.org/assets/documents/uploads/World_Savvy_Components_of_
Global_Competency.pdf 

Crawford, E. O., & Kirby, M. M. (2011, April).  Global education in American and 
Australian teacher preparation: A comparison of policy, perception, and practice. 
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research 
Association, New Orleans, Louisiana. Retrieved from the AERA Online Paper 
Repository. 

Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (n.d.). National 
Professional Standards for Teachers.  Retrieved from 
http://www.deewr.gov.au/schooling/pages/professionalstandardsforteachers.aspx 

Duncan, A. (2010, May 26). International engagement through education. Speech 
presented at the Council on Foreign Relations Meeting. Retrieved from 
http://www2.ed.gov/news/speeches/2010/05/05262010.html  

Dyer, J. (2006). Global education: Stories from Australia. International Journal of the 
Humanities, 4, 35-40. 

Global Education.  (2008).  Global perspectives: A framework for global education in 
Australian Schools.  Retrieved from 
http://www.globaleducation.edna.edu.au/globaled/go/pid/122 

Hanvey, R. G. (1982). An attainable global perspective. Theory into Practice, 21, 162-
167. 

Hunter, W. (2004). Got global competency. International Educator, 13, 6-12. 

http://aacte.org/About-Us/Governance/resolutions.html#22
http://sites.asiasociety.org/education/globalcompetence/
http://www.teacherstandards.aitsl.edu.au/
http://worldsavvy.org/assets/documents/uploads/World_Savvy_Components_of_Global_Competency.pdf
http://worldsavvy.org/assets/documents/uploads/World_Savvy_Components_of_Global_Competency.pdf
http://www.deewr.gov.au/schooling/pages/professionalstandardsforteachers.aspx
http://www2.ed.gov/news/speeches/2010/05/05262010.html
http://www.globaleducation.edna.edu.au/globaled/go/pid/122


Global Partners in Education Journal                                                                                                  April 2012, Vol.2 No.1, pp. 12-24 

www.gpejournal.org                      ISSN 2163-758X 

 

 

23 

 

Kagan, S. L., & Stewart, V. (2004). Putting the world into world-class education: 
Introduction. Phi Delta Kappan, 86, 195-196. 

Kirkwood, T. (2001). Our global age requires global education: Clarifying definitional 
ambiguities. Social Studies, 92, 1-16. 

Marginson, S. (1999). After globalization: Emerging politics of education. Journal of 
Education Policy, 14, 19-31. 

Ministerial Council of Education, Employment, Training, and Youth Affairs (MCEETYA). 
(2008).  Melbourne declaration on educational goals for young Australians. 
Retrieved from 
http://www.mceetya.edu.au/mceecdya/melbourne_declaration,25979.html 

Merryfield, M. (1995). Institutionalizing cross-cultural experiences and international 
expertise in teacher education: The development and potential of a global 
education PDS network. Journal of Teacher Education, 46, 1-9. 

Merryfield, M. (1997). A framework for teacher education in global perspectives. In M. 
Merryfield, E. Jarchow, & S. Pickert (Eds.) Preparing teachers to teach global 
perspectives: A handbook for teacher educators (pp. vii-ix). Thousand Oaks, CA: 
Corwin Press, Inc. 

Ministerial Council for Education, Early Childhood Development and Youth Affairs 
(MCEECDYA). (1999). Adelaide declaration on national goals for schooling in the 
twenty-first century. Retrieved from 
http://www.mceetya.edu.au/mceecdya/adelaide_declaration_1999_text,28298.ht
ml 

National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE). (2008). NCATE unit 
standards in effect 2008. Retrieved from 
http://www.ncate.org/Standards/NCATEUnitStandards/tabid/123/Default.aspx 

National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE). (2010). NCATE 
glossary. Retrieved from 
http://www.ncate.org/Standards/NCATEUnitStandards/NCATEGlossary/tabid/477
/Default.aspx 

No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, § 115, Stat. 1425 
(2002). 

North Carolina Department of Public Instruction (NCDPI). (2009).  Standards for 
elementary grades teacher candidates. Retrieved from 
http://www.ncpublicschools.org/  

North Carolina Professional Teaching Standards Commission (NCPTSC). (2007). North 
Carolina professional teaching standards. Retrieved from 
http://www.learnnc.org/ncpts/2009-PTS/PTS1/ 

Oxfam. (2006). Education for global citizenship: A guide for schools. Oxford: Oxfam GB. 
Partnership for 21st Century Skills (p21). (2010). Retrieved from http://www.p21.org/ 
Pike, G. & Selby, D. (1988). Global teacher, global learner. London: Hodder and 

Stoughton. 
Stearns, P. (Ed.). (2009). Educating global citizens in colleges and universities: 

Challenges and opportunities. New York: Routledge. 
Suárez-Orozco, M. M. (2005). Rethinking education in the global era. Phi Delta Kappan, 

87, 209-212. 

http://www.mceetya.edu.au/mceecdya/melbourne_declaration,25979.html
http://www.mceetya.edu.au/mceecdya/adelaide_declaration_1999_text,28298.html
http://www.mceetya.edu.au/mceecdya/adelaide_declaration_1999_text,28298.html
http://www.ncate.org/Standards/NCATEUnitStandards/tabid/123/Default.aspx
http://www.ncate.org/Standards/NCATEUnitStandards/NCATEGlossary/tabid/477/Default.aspx
http://www.ncate.org/Standards/NCATEUnitStandards/NCATEGlossary/tabid/477/Default.aspx
http://www.ncpublicschools.org/
http://www.learnnc.org/ncpts/2009-PTS/PTS1/
http://www.p21.org/


Global Partners in Education Journal                                                                                                  April 2012, Vol.2 No.1, pp. 12-24 

www.gpejournal.org                      ISSN 2163-758X 

 

 

24 

 

 

About the Authors 

Misty M. Kirby, a recent Ph.D. graduate of the College of William and Mary in 
Williamsburg, VA, USA, is an Assistant Professor in the Faculty of Education at the 
University of Canberra, Australia. She teaches courses in education foundations and 
curriculum. A former NYC classroom teacher, her research interests include equity of 
education for students in urban schools and other high poverty areas, organizational 
attributes that overpower low student SES on achievement, student retention, education 
policy and global education.  She can be reached at Misty.Kirby@canberra.edu.au.  

Dr. Elizabeth O. Crawford is an Assistant Professor at the University of North Carolina 
Wilmington (USA). She holds a Ph.D. degree in Curriculum Leadership from the College 
of William and Mary. Her primary research focus is global education in the elementary 
setting, including contemporary educational policy and effective means to infuse global 
issues in one’s existing curriculum. She can be reached at crawforde@uncw.edu.  

mailto:Misty.Kirby@canberra.edu.au
mailto:crawforde@uncw.edu

