Teacher Education for an Uncertain Future: Implications of PISA’s Global Competence

Chapter

Abstract

In 2018, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development’s (OECD) is set to introduce an assessment of Global Competence in its Programme for International Student Achievement (PISA). This assessment lays the foundation for a set of knowledge, skills, values and beliefs that the OECD considers necessary to become a globally competent citizen. Throughout this chapter, we identify and critique the intended socialising function of PISA’s Global Competence and consider its implications for Initial Teacher Education (ITE). We do this by drawing on Bernstein’s theoretical tools to engage in a critical analysis of PISA’s Global Competence framework. Our analysis reveals three key findings: (1) PISA’s Global Competence acts as a symbolic regulator of consciousness, (2) PISA’s Global Competence facilitates a new form of global pedagogic governance and (3) ITE can play an important role in either reproducing, disrupting or transforming the socialising function of PISA’s Global Competence. In conclusion, we argue that engaging with Comparative and International Education scholarship will prepare pre-service teachers to respond to the complexities and demands of an uncertain educational future within an increasingly globalised educational landscape.

Keywords

PISA Global competence Bernstein Initial teacher education Comparative and International Education 

References

  1. Bernstein, B. (2000). Pedagogy, symbolic control and identity: Theory, research, critique (Revised Ed). Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers Inc.Google Scholar
  2. Bernstein, B. (2001). Symbolic control: Issues of empirical description of agencies and agents. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 4(1), 21–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Comparative and International Education. (2017). Comparative and International Education Society. http://www.cies.us.
  4. Henry, M., Lingard, B., Rizvi, F., & Taylor, S. (2001). The OECD, globalisation and education policy. Oxford: IAU Press.Google Scholar
  5. Labaree, D. F. (2014). Let’s measure what no one teaches: PISA, NCLB, and the shrinking aims of education. Teachers College Record, 116, 1–14.Google Scholar
  6. Lingard, B., & Lewis, S. (2017). Placing PISA and PISA for schools in two federalisms, Australia and the USA. Critical Studies in Education, 58(3), 1–14.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17508487.2017.1316295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Lingard, B., & Sellar, S. (2016). The changing organizational and global significance of the OECD’s education work. The Handbook of Global Education Policy, 357–373.  https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118468005.ch19.
  8. Meyer, H.-D., & Benavot, A. (2013). PISA and the globalization of education governance: Some puzzles and problems. In H.-D. Meyer & A. Benavot (Eds.), PISA, power, and policy: The emergence of global educational governance (pp. 7–26). Oxford: Symposium Books Ltd.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Münch, R. (2014). Education under the regime of PISA & Co: Global standards and local traditions in conflict-The case of Germany. Teachers College Record, 116, 1–1.Google Scholar
  10. Murphy, D. (2014). Issues with PISA’s use of its data in the context of international education policy convergence. Policy Futures in Education, 12(7), 893–916.  https://doi.org/10.2304/pfie.2014.12.7.893.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. OECD. (2016). Global competency for an inclusive world. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  12. OECD. (2017). PISA 2015 assessment and analytical framework (PISA). Paris: OECD: OECD Publishing.  https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264281820-en.
  13. O’Sullivan, M., Maarman, R. F., & Wolhuter, C. C. (2010). Primary student teachers’ perceptions of and motivations for comparative education: Findings from a comparative study of an Irish and South African comparative education course. Compare, 38, 401–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Pykett, J. (2009). Pedagogical power: Lessons from school spaces. Education, Citizenship and Social Justice, 4(2), 102–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Robertson, S. L. (2008). “Remaking the World” neoliberalism and the transformation of education and teachers’ Labor. In L. Weiner & M. Compton (Eds.), The global assault on teaching, teachers, and their unions stories for resistance (pp. 11–27). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.  https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230611702.
  16. Robertson, S. L. (2016). The global governance of teachers’ work. In K. Mundy, A. Green, B. Lingard, & A. Verger (Eds.), The handbook of global education policy (pp. 275–290). West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons.  https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118468005.ch15.
  17. Robertson, S. L., & Dale, R. (2015). Towards a “critical cultural political economy” account of the globalising of education. Globalisation, societies and education, 13(1), 149–170.  https://doi.org/10.1080/14767724.2014.967502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Robertson, S. L., & Sorensen, T. (2017). Global transformations of the state, governance and teachers’ labour: Putting Bernstein’s conceptual grammar to work. European Educational Research Journal, 0(0), 1–19.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1474904117724573.
  19. Sellar, S., & Lingard, B. (2013). PISA and the expanding role of the OECD in global educational governance. In H.-D. Meyer (Ed.), PISA, power, and policy: The emergence of global governance (pp. 185–206). Oxford, United Kingdom: Symposium Books.Google Scholar
  20. Sellar, S., & Lingard, B. (2014). The OECD and the expansion of PISA: New global modes of governance in education. British Educational Research Journal, 40(6), 917–936.  https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Shah, R., McCormick, A., & Thomas, M. A. M. (2017). Shifting tides: Reflecting on regional aspects of our roles as comparative and international educators. The International Education Journal: Comparative Perspectives, 16(3), 49–68.Google Scholar
  22. Singh, P. (2015). Performativity and pedagogising knowledge: Globalising education policy formation, dissemination and enactment. Journal of Education Policy, 30(3), 363–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Singh, P. (2017). Pedagogic governance: Theorising with/after Bernstein. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 38(2), 144–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Tröhler, D., Meyer, H.-D., Labaree, D. F., & Hutt, E. (2014). Accountability: Antecedents, power, and processes. Teachers College Record, 116, 1–12.Google Scholar
  25. Tyler, W. (2010). Towering TIMSS or leaning PISA? Vertical and horizontal models of international testing regimes. In P. Singh, A. R. Sadovnik, & S. F. Semel (Eds.), Toolkits, translation devices and conceptual accounts: Essays on Basil Bernstein’s sociology of knowledge (pp 143 – 159). New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  26. Volante, L., & Fazio, X. (2018). PISA, policy, and global educational governance. In L. Volante (Ed.), The PISA effect on global educational governance (pp. 3–14). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  27. Wang, J., Lin, E., Spalding, E., Odell, S. J., & Klecka, C. (2011). Understanding teacher education in an era of globalization. Journal of Teacher Education, 62, 115–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Woodward, R. (2009). The Organisation for economic co-operation and development. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  29. Wiseman, A. W. (2013). Policy responses to PISA in comparative perspective. In H.-D. Meyer & A. Benavot (Eds.), PISA, power, and policy: The emergence of global educational governance (pp. 303–322). Oxford, U.K: Symposium Books.Google Scholar
  30. Zhao, Y. (2010). Preparing globally competent teachers: A new imperative for teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 61, 422–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The University of WaikatoHamiltonNew Zealand
  2. 2.The University of AucklandAucklandNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations