Introduction

Children and youth are increasingly demanding action and empowering themselves to learn about and shape their world, as witnessed, for example, in the student strike for climate action movement. The United Nations attest that only by working with children and youth across diversity and difference will global communities be able ‘to achieve peace, security, justice, climate resilience, and sustainable development for all’ (Clark et al., 2020, p. 617).

Engaging in dialogue about global challenges involves global meaning-making that acknowledges and capitalises on diverse understandings and ways of knowing to re-imagine and transform realities (Tierney, 2018). In developing these capabilities, education has a critical role to play—as made clear in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s (OECD, 2018a, 2018b) appeal for collective action and a re-thinking of educational approaches that address global challenges in ways that place ‘collaboration above division, and sustainability above short-term gain’, so that children might ‘value common prosperity, sustainability and well-being’ (p. 3).

Global citizenship education (GCE) is a response to this clarion call of enabling globally aware and engaged citizens (Thomas & Banki, 2021). The Global Education First Initiative (GEFI, 2012) first advanced global citizenship in the United Nations system, followed by strong commitment to global citizenship enshrined in Goal 4.7 of the United Nations’ Sustainable Goals as means to fostering interconnectedness across borders and cultures and address global and local issues:

By 2030, ensure that all learners acquire the knowledge and skills needed to promote sustainable development, including, among others, through education for sustainable development and sustainable lifestyles, human rights, gender equality, promotion of a culture of peace and non-violence, global citizenship and appreciation of cultural diversity and of culture’s contribution to sustainable development. (United Nations, 2015, p. 19)

However, the space afforded to GCE remains contested in Australian education policy pronouncements (Peterson, 2020). While the subject has gained prominence in education discourses (Tarozzi, 2020), it remains on the peripheries of practice and often suffers from a lack of administrative support (Rapoport, 2015). Much of the burden is predominantly borne by the goodwill of teachers who understand the value of global citizenship education and so locate and assess materials and novel ways to squeeze in complex concepts and controversial topics in an already overcrowded curriculum (Buchanan et al., 2018).

We therefore see potential and need in this study for GCE learning to be bolstered by an intentional attempt to involve the abundant yet dispersed materials produced by actors and sectors external to education. Hence, the scoping study reported in this article, in which we mapped existing GCE resources, primarily developed outside formal education, to assist teachers in identifying platforms for civic praxis and potentially leverage pedagogical approaches to foster children’s civic capabilities for engaging as active citizens who can express, negotiate, and enact their views on issues and solutions in a changing and challenging world—while engaging with views different from their own (Lee et al., 2021; Wall, 2019).

We begin our report of this study by explicating GCE before describing how we mapped and curated GCE-related materials. Findings of the results are shared, with the paper ending with a discussion of future directions and research.

Global citizenship education

As conceived by its proponents, global citizenship serves as ‘the umbrella term for social, political, environmental, and economic actions of globally minded individuals and communities’ (United Nations, n.d, n.p.) to ‘democratise [a] decision-making process’ (Bachelet, 2018, n.p). In so doing, a global citizen is envisioned to expand their views beyond the traditional limitations of the state (UNESCO, 2017) to ‘radically affect basic aspects of our societies, especially in people’s lives, particularly those of minorities and the disadvantaged’ (Bachelet, 2018, n.p). From our review of the literature we found that, on the whole, GCE definitions from different institutions centre broadly on two concepts: global mindedness and taking action (i.e. to enact change). We do not see ‘global mindedness’ in a literal sense, but rather more broadly like Andreotti (2010) proposed as how individuals multidimensionally think and feel about and engage with otherness and difference. Further, we see empathy at the core of global mindedness.

As a learning domain, GCE has been driven from outside formal education, primarily by international non-government organisations (NGOs) whose activism spurned what Mannion et al. (2011) call a ‘curricular global turn’—of educational sectors purposefully infusing their curricula with global learning platforms in partnership with government, community, business, and philanthropy (Hartung, 2017), international and local organisations (Noh, 2020; Yemini et al., 2018). Indeed, external-to-education actors and sectors, especially those working in international development and civil society sector (e.g. Oxfam), have been critical players in co-constructing the features of GCE in different contexts (Coelho et al., 2022; Noh, 2020), including as resource providers of curricular resources (Ibrahim, 2005).

Researchers have noted a proliferation of GCE approaches that challenge Western-centric, neoliberal interpretations of GCE for global market competence and employment (Torres & Bosio, 2020). These approaches include post-colonial and critical theory approaches (e.g. de Oliveira Andreotti et al., 2016); transformative approaches oriented to cultural diversity, human rights, and collaboration (e.g. Gaudelli, 2016); and approaches favouring a value-creating orientation to nurture students’ humanity through creative co-existence with others (e.g. Sharma, 2018). Amidst these approaches, Torres and Bosio (2020) have identified challenges that GCE continues to face vis-à-vis embedding GCE in national contexts and citizenships. These include articulating GCE with sustainability policies; the cost of implementing GCE globally—to which we add, situating GCE in education policy contexts that emphasise and standardise individual performativity and position students as units of future economic productivity in a global society (Piazza, 2017; Rizvi & Lingard, 2010), thereby constricting curriculum and diminishing the voices and agency of children and youth (Dobson & Dobson, 2021), leaving little space to foster students’ global citizenship. All the more critical, then, is OECD’s aforementioned call (2018) for approaches that re-dress these trends for the greater common and planetary good.

In Australia, GCE has been integrated into the Alice Springs (Mparntwe) Education Declaration, the country’s foremost policy document, stipulating that young Australians should learn to ‘understand their responsibilities as global citizens and know how to affect positive change’ (Education Council, 2019, p. 6). Further, the declaration also states that learners are expected to become ‘active and informed members of the community’ by being ‘informed and responsible global and local members of the community who value and celebrate cultural differences’ (p. 8). The Australian Curriculum (ACARA, 2022) highlights General Capabilities that relate to the global mindedness of global citizenship education, such as ‘intercultural understanding’ and ‘ethical understanding’. These two domains of understanding enjoin teachers to involve students in activities that foster strong personal, socially oriented, and ethical outlooks and obligations as global citizens on issues as varied as human rights, the environment, sustainability, and immigration, all of which are core business of global citizenship (e.g. see Torres, 2017). Locally, studies also show urgent reasons for schools to open up spaces for more engaged conversations and practices to encourage peer connections between students of different cultural, ethnic, and socioeconomic backgrounds (see Linder & Margetts, 2021; Miller et al., 2021).

This scoping study of GCE resources is set against growing concern over child and youth access to a plethora of information at their fingertips in this new media (or information) age. The skills to discern fake news and biased communication require critical and media literacy educationFootnote 1 (Narewska, 2020). Further, young people need to build up their political literacy to partake in public debates and actions.Footnote 2 We see education playing a key role in developing broad awareness of diverse perspectives (ethical and intercultural understanding), political literacy, contestation and dialogue, and strategic civic action (e.g. see Collins, 1992; Torres, 2017; United Nations, n.d). More importantly, there exists evidence of increasing youth involvement and activism in response to precarious times. Children and youth demand to be heard, as is manifest in student strikes for climate action nationally in Australia (e.g. see www.schoolstrike4climate.com/) and internationally (e.g. see www.fridaysforfuture.org/). These impassioned actions by young people are strong signals of their hunger to be part of critical global conversations. These also indicate their desire to improve their competence to remedy multiple human manifested crises and build some sense of security and stability in present and future worlds (e.g. see Simons, 2023). This aspiration was most discernible, for instance, in the Raise Our Voice in Parliament campaign of 2021. In this campaign, 603 young people submitted parliamentary speeches that conveyed that they have ‘some understanding of politics and a sense that they could engage with the system’; however, ‘there was less confidence in [their] ability to influence politics’ (Raise our Voice Australia, 2021, p. 6).

Thus, this project aims to enhance access to educative resources for strengthening child and youth voices and agency in education settings for active global citizenship. We recognise that teaching has become more focused on literacy and numeracy, driven by the datafication of education to evidence impact and entangled with agendas to increase privatisation and commodification (Hardy, 2020)—all of which push objectives of global citizenship education to the background. In Australia, the learning area of Humanities and Social Sciences includes Civics and Citizenship in which explicit global citizenship education is included. We anticipate those teaching Civics and Citizenship would be the main audience of the resource catalogue, though we hope through promotion and word-of-mouth recommendations that the resource catalogue is utilised by teachers across all sectors and learning areas for the benefits of searching on one website and the suite of filtering tools provided.

Method

This section discusses how we deployed a scoping study to map available curricular resources for teaching GCE. The scoping is part of a larger research project that examined how education sectors can embed child and youth global citizenship literacies and leadership through local and global strategies, resources, and support mechanisms. Among the other methods employed were consultations with a reference group, one-on-one and group interviews with key adult and youth thought leaders on global citizenship and children’s rights, and a systematic literature review.

Scoping study was developed by Arksey and O’Malley (2005) as a method to ‘map rapidly the key concepts underpinning a research area and the main sources and types of evidence available’ (Mays et al., 2001, p. 194; italics in original). The method gained prominence in health research evidence synthesis so that methodological changes to enhance and delimit each of the steps initially proposed by Arksey and O’Malley would be later introduced by scholars from the health sector (See Levac et al., 2010; Tricco et al., 2018). Davis et al. (2009) affirm that scoping studies serve as ‘reconnaissance’ tools to ‘extract the essence of a diverse body of evidence’ (p. 3), casting the net widely to open the investigation to broader topics and accommodate changes in the focus and specificity of a research question.

The body of research involving scoping study has mainly focused on identifying gaps, invisibilities, and consensus in the corpus of texts analysed (Bartlett et al., 2018; Byrd et al., 2022; Turner & Stough, 2020). Beyond its popularity as a tool for literature mapping, scoping study has also been employed to analyse grey literature (Chakraborty et al., 2021; Parry et al., 2016), policy documents (Grech et al., 2020; Roleska et al., 2018), and websites (Byrd et al., 2022) among others. The method’s utility has also been employed to map concepts and the meanings attached to them, as well as policies and their bearing on governance (Anderson et al., 2008).

Arksey and O’Malley argue that there are four common reasons why a scoping study may be employed (2005). First, a scoping study as a rapid review of materials maps the field of study where it is difficult to visualise the range of materials available. Second, preliminary mapping might show whether a full systematic review is needed. Third, a scoping study provides a summary for disseminating findings to policymakers and practitioners. Finally, a scoping study helps identify the gaps and points to areas for further research.

In this project, we endeavoured to meet the first, third, and fourth rationales for scoping research. Instead of literature sources, we have chosen to examine the extent, range, and types of curricular resources available for GCE across early childhood, primary, and secondary education. This aligns with the first reason Arksey and O’Malley identify, but instead of focussing on curricular resources, they name ‘research activity’ (p. 21). To date, limited studies have examined the resources for GCE (e.g. see Ibrahim, 2005). Some have assessed small samples of specific aspects of GCE, for example, McCandless et al’s (2022) semiotic square analysis of intercultural understanding assessment startegies. In addition, through the mapping exercise, we aimed to put together a catalogue of GCE resources for education policymakers and teachers to consult. By consolidating the resources in a catalogue, the project supports greater access for educators, both nationally and internationally, through the online platform being open access. In order to satisfy the third rationale, this endeavour also identified the areas where more materials could be produced following scope analysis according to the categories such as UN Sustainable Development Goals (United Nations, 2015), OECD dimensions of Global Competence (OECD, 2018a, 2018b), and general capabilities and cross-curricular priorities of the Australian Curriculum (ACARA, 2022).

Resource mapping for GCE

Following Arksey and Malley’s (2005) key processes for a scoping study, we illustrate in Fig. 1 (next page), through two sets of connected boxes, the steps we followed in our scoping review. The first overlapping set of boxes shows the sequence of activities we engaged in mapping resources and creating the resource catalogue that is available on a searchable website for educators and general audiences (see https://enablingyoungvoicesforcivicaction.com/resource-catalogue). The overlaps in Fig. 1 indicate that the mapping process was not linear in execution. There were multiple instances wherein a step was revisited considering new evidence or as a result of team reflections. The second set of processes, here shown as articulated boxes that mirror the first set’s timeline, illustrate ongoing consultations with a reference group and thought leaders. The mapping exercise is described in more detail below.

Fig. 1
figure 1

The resource mapping process

Full size image

Identifying the research question

The study was guided by the overarching research question, what are the open-access online curricular resources available for global citizenship education? The inquiry then expanded to ask these related questions:

  1. a.

    How do these curricular resources align with Australian curricula components (i.e. outcomes of the Early Years Learning Framework (EYLF) for Australia and relevant general capabilities and cross-curricular priorities of the Australian Curriculum)?

  2. b.

    How do these curricular resources align with international GCE-related frameworks (i.e. OECD dimensions of global competence and UN Sustainable Development Goals)?

  3. c.

    Where are the gaps in GCE resource support in questions a and b?

The first sub-question (a) examines the resources fit vis-à-vis components of Australian curricula for early childhood, primary, and secondary education. As the study focuses on the Australian context, we saw that mapping resources to the Early Years Learning Framework for Australia (AGDE, 2022) outcomes and the Australian Curriculum (ACARA, 2022) general capabilities and cross-curricular priorities would support teachers in selecting resources to enact curricular outcomes. The second sub-question extends the analysis of how resources are aligned to international frameworks, such as the OECD’s four dimensions of global competence (OECD, 2018a, 2018b) and the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), to support the application of these international frameworks. We have chosen to map resources against the OECD’s global competence framework, having considered global competence as a construct that is closely aligned to the aims of GCE, especially the former’s emphasis on preparing learners to engage global issues and in intercultural situations, whether this be face-to-face, virtual, or mediated (OECD, n.d.) Specifically, global competence is delineated as four dimensions, discussed below:

The first dimension is the capacity to critically examine issues such as poverty, trade, migration, inequality, environmental justice, conflict, cultural differences, and stereotypes. The second is the capacity to understand and appreciate different perspectives and world views. The third dimension is the ability to interact positively with people of different national, social, ethnic, and religious backgrounds, as well as those of different genders. The fourth dimension builds on the first three and stresses being willing to act constructively to address issues of sustainability and well-being. Taken together, these are the four aspects of a singular concept, which is global competence. (Asia Society and OECD, 2018a, 2018b, p. 12)

Further, our understanding of the UN SDGs, as necessary reference points for GCE learning, resonates with the assertions of other scholars in the field (see Gough, 2018; Leite, 2022). With the specificity of the global goals, we echo Leite’s (2022) assertion that the SDGs ‘drive a pragmatic definition of global citizenship’ (p. 401). Most reviewed materials did not indicate explicit alignment with the SDGs or the OECD competences. We then endeavoured to assess the materials’ content for philosophical, conceptual, and practical fit. In the broader study, we inquired into literacy practices for global citizenship and developed a transformative literacies framework for active global citizenship, of involving literacy practices of accessing, understanding, inquiring, and creating and acting. These four categories of practices correlate with the OECD Global competence dimensions and resources were catalogued according to the focus on these practices.

Finally, the third sub-question looks at how global citizenship, an ever-evolving concept with contested definitions, is being delineated through materials produced by external-to-education resource providers. By looking at gaps and consensus in resource creation, we seek to signal areas wherein education partners could focus their efforts to provide more balance across domains of focus for comprehensive GCE resource support.

Identifying relevant organisations as resource providers

Through purposive sampling, we identified NGOs and community sector organisations and institutions with a strong commitment to human rights, global minded ethos, and advocacy that produced and made available GCE resources freely available online. As practitioners in the field, the project’s lead researchers already knew several resource providers. The list then expanded through extensive desk research and snowball sampling of resources citing other resource providers and following recommendations of the project’s interview participants and reference group members.

The pool of resource providers identified became an eclectic mix of supranational bodies (e.g. UNICEF), Australian institutions (e.g. Human Rights Commission, Museum of Australian Democracy), international (e.g. Plan International, Oxfam UK and Australia), and local non-government organisations (e.g. Narragunnawali). Some of these organisations have collaborated to produce resources (e.g. Cool Australia and Australia Human Rights Commission). Many of these materials were explicitly linked to the features of the Australian Curriculum (ACARA, 2022). For the rest of the resources, we had to assess how each fit the selection and categorisation criteria.

Resources selection

The organisations identified did not produce materials exclusively to suit topics under GCE. Some clearly labelled their materials as GCE resources (e.g. Oxfam), while others were more generally on civics (e.g. Australia Human Rights Commission) and social studies (e.g. Asia Education Foundation). As informed by the study design, the inclusion and selection criteria were loosely on a) materials produced for children and young people that b) emphasise participation, engagement, and leadership in global issues. Some materials were included as they provide platforms and examples for youth activism (e.g. Plan International), even if the materials produced were not explicitly indicated for young audiences. The main criterion for exclusion was irrelevance. For example, not all materials produced by Cool Australia or Australian Association for Teachers of English (AATE) were included because these were on issues not related to GCE. By limiting the pool of GCE resources to those produced by NGOs and community sector organisations and institutions with a strong commitment to human rights, global minded ethos. and advocacy, quality was already vetted through these organisations’ advisory and approval mechanisms. No commercial materials were included, in our commitment to only source-free open-access resources.

We envision the online catalogue as a central node that opens several avenues for educators to consider how they could infuse their teaching repertoire with GCE materials, by searching on a topic. In cataloguing materials authored by different organisations, we wanted conversations to emerge on the multiplicity of voices, topics, pedagogical approaches, and agendas in learning about global issues. The materials are tagged according to the general capabilities and cross-curricular priorities of the Australian Curriculum (ACARA, 2022), as well as the UN Sustainable Development Goals (United Nations, 2015) and the OECD dimensions of Global Competence (OECD, 2018a, 2018b). This tagging makes clear the materials’ relevance to the Australian Curriculum while also creating possibilities for engendering interdisciplinary educational experiences.

Alongside the scoping study, we also reviewed authorised definitions of GCE from the United Nations (Bachelet, 2018), UNICEF Rights Respecting Schools (2022), UNESCO (2017), OECD (2018a, 2018b), Oxfam (2015), and the Australian Curriculum (2022). We identified the following terms as common across all definitions: global mindedness (i.e. interconnectedness, community membership, belonging, identity, solidarity and having a sense of responsibility to other members) and taking action (i.e. to enact change). Some further contextualised global citizenship with additional attributes: positive outcomes for a better world; knowledge about the world; global challenges; values of diversity, human rights and dignity, social justice; and membership in local and global communities. Attention to these terms also guided the selection of resources.

Charting the data

Charting the data means assessing each resource material and coding its features according to a set of indicators. We in the research team used a priori indicators for coding in the first instance, consistent with the research question/s raised.

For instance, to answer sub-question (a), the first indicator considered was the education sector targeted by a resource—early childhood, primary, or secondary level. Some resources used ages as a marker, so we had to convert these to corresponding year levels per the Australian education system. In addition, we also determined how the materials promote any or some of the Early Years Learning Framework for Australia (AGDE, 2022) outcomes, or General Capabilities (GC) (i.e. literacy, numeracy, digital literacy, creative and critical thinking, personal and social capability, ethical understanding, and intercultural understanding) and cross-curricular priorities (CCP) (i.e. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Histories and Cultures, Asia and Australia’s Engagement with Asia, and Sustainability) endorsed by the Australian Curriculum (ACARA, 2022).

For sub-question (b), the a priori codes used were the OECD’s four dimensions of global competence (OECD, 2018a, 2018b):

  1. 1.

    Examine the issues of local, global, and cultural significance

  2. 2.

    Understand and appreciate the perspectives and world views of others.

  3. 3.

    Engage in open, appropriate, and effective interactions across cultures.

  4. 4.

    Take action for collective well-being and sustainable development.

In addition, the materials were assessed to determine whether they were aligned with any of the seventeen SDGs. These are 1. No poverty; 2. Zero hunger; 3. Good health and well-being; 4. Quality education; 5. Gender equality; 6. Clean water and sanitation; 7. Affordable and clean energy; 8. Decent work and economic growth; 9. Industry, innovation, and infrastructure; 10. Reduced inequalities; 11. Sustainable cities and communities; 12. Responsible consumption and production; 13. Climate action; 14. Life below water; 15. Life on land; 16. Peace, justice, and strong institutions; and 17. Partnerships for the goals (United Nations, 2015). Finally, in answering sub-question (c), we reviewed gaps identified by mapping the scope of resources in relation to sub-questions (a) and (b) to identify which foci were most prominent and which were lacking coverage.

Collating, summarising, and reporting results

While following a process, the scoping study was iterative and generative rather than linear in execution. Linking back to Step 4 and research sub-question (c), we routinely met as authors and members of the research team to identify the ‘holes’ or ‘gaps’ in representation and areas of consensus. For example, a gap identified early on was the lack of materials for early childhood education. The researchers then endeavoured to tap into project reference group members and interview participants and networks with early childhood education sector expertise, to broaden the search for early childhood education GCE resources. The codes and categories were then grouped and analysed per the a priori indicators.

Consultation

Arksey and O’Malley (2005) indicated that consultations with experts and stakeholders are essential and encouraged practice for scoping studies. To locate as many resources as possible, the research team regularly consulted throughout the research from May to November 2022.

The first group to be consulted was the research project’s reference group. Said group comprised of academics, practitioners, and advocates for global citizenship, youth empowerment, and literacies building. The second group of consultations were in each interview with thought leaders, in which were included questions on their knowledge about organisations and resources with programmes and projects related to GCE. As a result, the list of providers and their resources expanded, with the final tally totalling 252 resources from 37 organisations for this analysis as at end of November 2022 (resources are continuing to be added to the catalogue). The reference group was again consulted for their feedback, comments, and review when the website was released live in the latter part of the research project.

Several caveats are necessary for reading the results and discussions in the following sections. Even as the researchers endeavoured to collect as many materials as possible, they were also cognisant that many more may not have been found. For example, the study and the project only limited its scope to resource providers with an online presence. Thus, those without websites were summarily excluded. In addition, some organisations’ resources were not publicly available or could only be accessed with a fee. Therefore, the figures shown and discussions in the next section should only be interpreted in the context of the materials assessed.

Resource alignment to Australia’s national curriculum

The mapped GCE resources included a wide range of materials, including podcasts, videos, workbooks, infographics, lesson plans, and units of study materials. Most were produced with explicit linkage to the Australian Curriculum (ACARA, 2022) and for specific age groups. Table 1shows that most materials were made with primary (n = 143) and secondary (n = 145) school students as the target cohorts.

Table 1 Distribution of resources by education sector
Full size table

While the literature encourages GCE learning to take place in the early years of a child’s education, only 23 materials out of 252 resources deliberately target pre-primary school education. Across the EYLF outcomes (see Table 2), the resources specifically focus on awareness-raising on issues such as children's rights, climate change, and racial/intercultural harmony (global mindedness), thus fostering learners’ connection with their world (n = 19), as shown in Table 2. The materials also enjoin younger students to exercise their agency by being involved and confident in their learning of global issues (n = 12), communicating their insights (n = 11) (taking action) effectively through posters, storytelling, and role-plays.

Table 2 Distribution of resources by early years learning framework outcomes
Full size table

The resources highlight the building of four Australian Curriculum (ACARA, 2022) general capabilities (see Table 3). There is equal emphasis on critical and creative thinking (n = 90), personal and social capability (n = 90), and ethical understanding (n = 90). The critical and creative thinking materials persuade students to consider their positionalities over controversial issues analytically and how they might take part in creating various media to express their views (taking action). The personal and social capability materials encourage students to think about their personal and social capability in alleviating, for instance, poverty, hunger, and insecure living conditions (global mindedness). The ethical understanding resources ask students to reflect on their views on issues relating to inclusion, human rights, and sustainable use of limited resources (global mindedness). Students can come to terms with intercultural understanding (n = 67) in resources about racial diversity and discrimination (global mindedness). It was common for a single resource to be coded for all four capabilities. For instance, when students are enjoined to brainstorm and create a campaign material to spread awareness about racial discrimination (i.e. critical and creative thinking), the same resource might also post prompts on why racial prejudice should not be tolerated (i.e. ethical understanding), why dialogue and working together should be encouraged (i.e. intercultural understanding), and how young people can become actively involved in race discourses (i.e. personal and social capability). Literacy (n = 42), digital literacy (n = 33), and numeracy (n = 11) were far less frequently identified across the resources, that is through explicit naming or reference to activities in the resource that used literacy, digital literacy, and/or numeracy skills. However, we argue that literacy is required in every learning activity, as all involve communicating meaning. The Australian curriculum defines literacy as ‘knowledge, skills and dispositions to interpret and use language confidently for learning and communicating in and out of school and for participating effectively in society’ (ACARA, 2022). And this is why Phillips and Harris with colleagues developed a transformative literacies framework to support understanding and application of literacies in global citizenship (see https://enablingyoungvoicesforcivicaction.com/literacies-framework/). Further, all which involve interaction with digital communication tools address digital literacy, and all which involve number, measurement, probability, geometry, and statistics address numeracy.

Table 3 Distribution of resources by general capabilities
Full size table

The cross-curriculum priorities were not immediately evident in most of the resources mapped (see Table 4). Topics relating to human–environment interaction, including recycling, ethical consumption, conservation, and the climate crisis, relate most to sustainability (n = 61) as a priority. Issues on race, migration, First Australians, and cross-cultural interactions are associated with a curricular emphasis on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Histories and Cultures (n = 45). There was a minimal emphasis on Asia and Australia’s Engagement with Asia (n = 27).

Table 4 Distribution of resources by cross-curriculum priorities
Full size table

Congruence with global frameworks

The materials were spread across all seventeen SDGs, with topics ranging from race and racism, First Nations, democracy, human rights, aid, the role of NGOs, disability exclusion, and migration (see Table 5). Most relate to Goals 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities) and 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production), particularly on topics of and reuse of materials and renewable energy. Issues on inequality, violence, inclusion/and exclusion were coded under Goals 16 (Peace and Justice Strong Institutions) and 10 (Reduced Inequality). Interestingly, only a moderate number of resources attend to gender equality, quality education, and good health and well-being when these significant issues affect education.

Table 5 Distribution of resources by sustainable development goals
Full size table

While the resources were coded in multiple ways across the OECD competence dimensions, the majority (n = 97) were mainly on the examination of issues of global and local significance (global mindedness) (see Table 6). These include infographics, posters, units of study, and videos that are mainly descriptive, illustrative, and explanatory of issues. The resources were coded for Dimension 2 when these were indicative of attending to competing perspectives (Dimension 2, n = 70). Materials coded under this category enjoin learners to explore alternative viewpoints, mainly on issues of religion, culture, and race (global mindedness). Fewer materials push the narrative to open communications (n = 46) across cultures. These materials encourage students to investigate difference more deeply by engaging in meaningful interactions with others (taking action). Finally, some materials encourage active participation (Dimension 4, n = 55), such as through letter-writing, setting up special projects, creating audio-visual materials, protesting, and leading initiatives (taking action).

Table 6 Distribution of resources by the OECD’s dimensions of global competence
Full size table

[In]visibilities in resource materials

From the scoping review mapped above, we can see that many of the resources complement the features of the Australian Curriculum and align with global frameworks. Here, we discuss the gaps or areas wherein more materials could be produced.

Resources for early childhood education

Earlier, Johansson (2009) observed a lack of attention to early education in GCE, even though research shows young learners’ capacity to reflect on their actions and act responsibly for their well-being and that of others, as Phillips (2010, 2011), Phillips et al. (2020) and Harris & Manatakis (2013) have too found in their empirical research. In the Australian context, the dearth of GCE resources in early childhood education is expected as citizenship education has a history of focusing on upper primary and secondary education. This is illustrated in the Australian Curriculum (ACARA, 2022), with the Civic and Citizenship curriculum beginning only in Year 3. Johansson further stressed that the early childhood space is a fertile ground to develop learners’ understandings and agencies and support teachers in teasing out complex contexts. For the most part, however, citizenship education literature remains, by and large, school centric. For example, of the 900-plus articles that the journal Citizenship studies have published, only one explicitly discusses early childhood education. However, a previous review of human rights in Australian curricula found that (Phillips, 2016) explicit references to civil, political, social and cultural rights were noted in the EYLF, providing a strong foundation for human rights education. For example, under the principle of sustainability it notes, ‘Children’s understanding of their citizenship, and rights and responsibilities as members of local and global communities, is built through meaningful and relevant educational experiences’ (p.18). GCE as global mindedness and taking action on issues that matter are more readily enacted in early childhood education, yet school education dominates citizenship education literature and resource development, continuing the metanarrative that the education that counts is in schools. We then urge resource providers within and outside of education systems to consider the agencies, voices, and perspectives of younger learners, bearing in mind that their well-being is at stake in every critical conversation about global crises and issues.

Literacy, numeracy, and digital literacy

Though there is some attention given to resources that attend to global citizenship literacy and numeracy, we see a real need for further attention here as it is through literacy and numeracy that we make meaning, and we hear that children and young people are asking for guidance on tools for global citizenship meaning-making (Raise Our Voice Australia, 2021). In GCE discussions with interviewed thought leaders, there were frequent references to the need for critical, media, digital, and political literacy. These words resonated with ourselves and research collaborators on citizenship literacies as part of the broader study, to further develop a framework on citizenship literacies which we have named transformative literacies (see https://enablingyoungvoicesforcivicaction.com/literacies-framework/) that draws from Freebody and Luke’s (1990) Four Resources Model to address the literacies in the OECD’s (2018a, 2018b) Global Competence four dimensions. The purpose of this framework is to guide educators on identified key literacy practices of accessing, understanding and inquiring into information and perspectives on issues to create and enact changes for positive outcomes to build global citizenship capacity with children and youth.

From ‘global mindedness’ to ‘action-oriented’ global citizenship

The greater located number of resources that focus on OECD Global competence Dimension 1: Examine local, global, and intercultural issues (97) and Dimension 2: Understand and appreciate the perspectives and worldviews of others (70) point to a preference of GCE teaching and learning being on knowledge building followed by discussion of differing perspectives. Fewer resources were located for Dimension 3; Engage in open, appropriate, and effective interactions across cultures (40) and Dimension 4: Take action for collective well-being and sustainable development (55). This is probably due to these dimensions requiring engagement with others beyond the classroom. As McCandless et al. (2022) and Dervin (2015) have noted, interaction with people of different cultures requires direct relational interactions, not online resources, which run the risk of essentialising cultures. Intercultural understanding is nurtured through longstanding relationships. Dimension 4 requires engaging with children and youth as active citizens, yet most societies are governed by the adults as the voters, decision-makers, leaders, and actants of social and eco-change offering little scope for child and youth voice and action. As the student strikes for climate action movement have demonstrated, under 18 year olds want to be part of the actions for collective well-being and sustainable development, and they are keen to learn how to strategically mitigate civic institutions (e.g. see Raise Our Voice Australia, 2021).

Platforms and possibilities: ways forward

For the most part, this project pursued a pragmatic aim: to create an online catalogue of GCE-related materials accessible to teachers and students. We were aware that there were materials produced by sectors and actors outside of education that could augment the teaching of GCE. We also understood that teachers, even as they are considered the main enactors of GCE learning (Thomas & Banki, 2021), are stretched for time to locate resources to engage and tease out complex and sometimes controversial issues within GCE in their classrooms. Thus, in putting together the online catalogue, we were enabling teachers’ access to a ‘one-stop shop’ of resources for GCE.

With reference to Arksey and O’Malley’s (2005) first reason for a scoping review, this article showed that where it is difficult to visualise the range of materials available, a rapid review is helpful in mapping abundant yet dispersed resources for GCE teaching. Through a systematic, consultative, and iterative set of processes, this review did not only confirm the existence of a plethora of GCE materials, as earlier speculated, but also facilitated their consolidation into meaningful categories. The website, as the product of this exercise, provides a handy retrieval system for specific education sectors, with Australian curricular links, and global framework connections. While a systematic review of resources may not be the next step forward, as per Arksey and Malley’s second rationale, we envision the resource catalogue to be periodically updated and recalibrated to reflect teachers’ preferences and user experiences. In connection with the third rationale for providing a summary for disseminating findings to policymakers and practitioners, we anticipate through this publication and promotion of the catalogue across various platforms to influence teachers and education decision-makers on GCE implementation. Thus, with the fourth rationale on identifying gaps and areas for further research, a critical follow-up research would inquire into teachers’ actual uptake. Among the significant questions to ask are:

  • What is the extent of teachers’ awareness and uptake of these resources?

  • What enables and constrains teachers’ uptake of these resources? What (if anything) do teachers further require to support their use of these resources?

  • In what ways do teachers use the resources and how do they find space and contexts in their curriculum work to do so?

  • How do teachers use resources across learning outcomes (EYLF), curriculum areas, general capabilities, and priorities?

  • How do the resources assist teachers in leveraging particular pedagogic approaches to fostering child and youth global citizenship?

Future research in GCE research and scoping studies of resources could also critically analyse the agenda put forward by other organisations vis-à-vis the resources that they produce, including what is made visible and left invisible in this agenda. In addition, a discursive review of resource texts could yield a complex understanding of how curricular resources co-define features of global citizenship education.

Overall, this endeavour to organise resources is an attempt at broadening conversations in GCE, and a deliberate move to more systematically include voices and perspectives outside of the formal education setting. It also serves as a positive acknowledgement of the civil society roots of GCE as a learning domain (as previously mentioned), and relatedly, extending and strengthening partnerships with government, community, business, and philanthropy international and local organisations for a truly global and democratised reach (Bachelet, 2018) of the field. We are cognisant that with the multiplicity of voices as in a democracy, some materials may not be fully aligned, or even present contradictory values to what some teachers hold. Thus, we encourage teachers to exercise critical thinking and prudence in choosing materials from the catalogue. Indeed, at the end of the day, teachers remain the final arbiter of these resources.