Journal of Teacher Education http://jte.sagepub.

com/

Understanding Teacher Education in an Era of Globalization

Jian Wang, Emily Lin, Elizabeth Spalding, Sandra J. Odell and Cari L. Klecka
Journal of Teacher Education 2011 62: 115
DOI: 10.1177/0022487110394334

The online version of this article can be found at:

http://jte.sagepub.com/content/62/2/115

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (AACTE)

Additional services and information for Journal of Teacher Education can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://jte.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://jte.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Citations: http://jte.sagepub.com/content/62/2/115.refs.html

Downloaded from jte.sagepub.com at Universiti Sains Malaysia on September 20, 2011

Editorial
Understanding Teacher Education
in an Era of Globalization
Jian Wang1, Emily Lin1, Elizabeth Spalding1,
Sandra J. Odell1, and Cari L. Klecka1
The growth of a global economy, which has spurred fierce
competition among many nations hoping to make economic
advances, is changing social, political, and economic landscapes
as well as the educational systems within these nations
(Stromquist & Monkman, 2000). In the United States, these
changes exert continual pressures to alter the ways in which
public schools prepare their citizenry for work (Burbules &
Torres, 2000) and the characteristics of classrooms where
these preparations are actualized (Garca, Arias, Murri, &
Serna, 2010). Consequently, changes in school functions and
classroom characteristics are engendering changes in teach-
ing and teacher education so that the United States can con-
tend with the challenges emerging from globalization
(Darling-Hammond & Cobb, 1996).
The research community can help policy makers make
informed decisions related to globalization, teaching, and
teacher education. First, it is important to describe the reali-
ties of globalization and its impacts on schools, teachers, and
teacher education to help policy makers and practitioners
develop a deep understanding about them. Second, it is criti-
cal to conceptualize the issues and problems emerging from
these realities and to develop theoretical assumptions that are
useful to policy makers and to practitioners for developing
and implementing effective teaching practices. Third, it is
necessary to verify empirically these concepts and assump-
tions so that potentially detrimental consequences of policy
decisions and practices may be mitigated.
Over the years, two competing perspectives have sur-
faced that conceptualize the realities of globalization and the
relevant problems for education. Each proposes different
solutions to these problems (Torres, 2002). Each offers
strong yet differing implications for changing teaching and
teacher education, and each faces challenges from increas-
ingly diverse classrooms that stem, in part, from the global
economy. By exploiting various resources, attracting cheap
labor, and exploring potential markets throughout the world,
the global economy contributes to increased migrations from
poor to rich areas, from rural areas to cities, and from devel-
oping countries to those that are developed (Garca et al.,
2010). These migrations create and intensify culturally,
racially, and socioeconomically diversified student popula-
tions in many countries, which further complicates the
Downloaded from jte.sagepub.com at Universiti Sains Malaysia on September 20, 2011
Journal of Teacher Education
62(2) 115120
2011 American Association of
Colleges for Teacher Education
Reprints and permission: http://www.
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0022487110394334
http://jte.sagepub.com
responsibility of school systems to prepare their students
for or against globalization, especially in the United States
(Banks, 2008).
The first is an economic imperative perspective (Zhao,
2010). Proponents of this perspective assume generally that
a nations competitive edge in the global economy resides in
its capacity to develop innovative products that can appeal to
a wide range of consumers; find effective ways to locate,
distribute, and use resources; and offer relevant efficient ser-
vices for such production and marketing worldwide (Spring,
1998). To compete in a global arena, a nation needs its work-
force to develop new ideas and solve problems successfully,
collaborate and communicate with other people effectively,
and adapt and function flexibly in different contexts and
environments (Stromquist, 2002). Central to this mission is
the need to develop certain types of specialized knowledge,
skills, and values within its workforce. These include sci-
ence, mathematics, and technological literacy; multilingual
oral, reading, and communication competence; and willing-
ness and ability to understand different cultures and use such
understandings to work with different individuals (Longview
Foundation, 2008).
From this perspective, one of the primary responsibilities
of teachers is to equip a nations future workforce with these
qualities. However, teachers are seen frequently as ill prepared
to meet this responsibility (Tatto, 2007). As a consequence,
ambitious curriculum and teaching standards, accountability
and assessment systems, and professional development pro-
grams are being established and implemented to transform
teaching practices to accommodate to standardization in
production and business processes (Merryfield, 1997; Tatto,
2006). However, these changes have not been examined
carefully, and assumptions made about effective teaching
and learning in relation to this perspective have not been
1
University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Las Vegas, NV, USA
Corresponding Author:
Jian Wang, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Department of Curriculum
and Instruction, 4505 Maryland Parkway, Box 453005, Las Vegas,
NV 89154-3005, USA
Email: wangj2@unlv.nevada.edu
116 Journal of Teacher Education 62(2)
fully explored (Delandshere & Petrosky, 2004; Loomis,
Rodriguez, & Tillman, 2008).
In contrast to the economic imperative perspective is the
critical resistant perspective, wherein globalization is seen as
the result of political and business decisions to help multina-
tional corporations pursue maximum profits (Burbules &
Torres, 2000). Global capitalism is seen as reducing a nations
education system to simply a subsector of its economy and as
having brought untold misery to millions of people throughout
the world (Apple, 2001; McLaren & Farahmandpur, 2001).
From this perspective, the most important task of a nations
school system is to prepare its citizenry to be committed to
social justice and human rights; acquire the critical con-
sciousness, necessary knowledge, and skills to participate
actively in the democratic process; and build solidarity in
opposition to global capitalism (Giroux, 2001).
To teach against global capitalism, therefore, teachers
must be prepared to be public intellectuals who show the
moral vision, demonstrate the courage, and possess the ana-
lytical tools to develop future citizens to be participants in a
critical democracy (Bates, 2008; Freire, 1970; Giroux &
McLaren, 1986; McLaren & Farahmandpur, 2001). Teach-
ers need to understand how broader social forces influence
schooling and the curriculum to connect their teaching prac-
tices to how power is used in the larger society and to make
the needs and interests of marginalized and oppressed people
central to their teaching practice (McLaren & Farahmandpur,
2001). Teacher education is seen by those adhering to a criti-
cal resistant perspective as part of a broader revolutionary
movement that must be attentive to diverse social and politi-
cal interests as well as the needs of different constituencies,
especially those that are poor and disenfranchised (Bates,
2008; Kumashiro, 2010). Curriculum and instruction in
teacher education should focus on helping teachers develop
the capacity to generate changes in their culturally and lin-
guistically complex classrooms using their critical personal
and professional knowledge along with the knowledge that
they gain from their students (Ball, 2009).
The economic imperative perspective has garnered strong
policy, political, and legal support with curriculum, assess-
ment, teaching, and teacher education reforms that standard-
ize what students need to learn, how their learning is
assessed, how teachers are held accountable for student per-
formance, and how teachers need to be prepared (National
Board for Professional Teaching Standards, 2002; National
Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education, 2002;
National Council for the Social Studies, 1994; National
Council of Teachers of English & International Reading
Association, 1996; National Council of Teachers of Mathe-
matics, 2000; National Governors Association, 2008;
National Research Council, 1996). However, such reforms,
although influential, also face challenges. These reforms
clash with the local control of school management, finance,
and curriculum as well as individualized teaching norms
Downloaded from jte.sagepub.com at Universiti Sains Malaysia on September 20, 2011
that are socially, politically, and economically rooted in U.S.
culture (Delandshere & Petrosky, 2004). Moreover, these
reforms conflict with the kinds of culturally responsive
teaching presumably effective and necessary for teaching
diverse students. Such teaching practices are grounded in
teachers deep understanding of students characteristics as
individuals with particular cultural, racial, linguistic, and
socioeconomic backgrounds and traditions that influence
their learning (Gay, 2000; Ladson-Billings, 1994). Teacher
education for diversity implies carefully selecting candidates
and structuring their teaching and learning experiences to
connect closely with the students backgrounds as well as to
their schools, communities, and families (Garca et al., 2010;
Ladson-Billings, 1999).
The influence of the critical resistant perspective on edu-
cation policy making and practice has been limited. This per-
spective has been of minimal influence in shaping existing
policy regarding curriculum, teaching, and teacher educa-
tion. With its revolutionary agenda of reforming teaching
and teacher education, it has failed to win political support
from powerful interest groups that dominate the existing
political system (Kumashiro, 2010). Consequently, a popu-
lar, politically active, unified force among diverse, marginal-
ized groups will be necessary to balance power in the existing
system. However, these constituencies often have conflict-
ing interests in the globalized economy that make unity dif-
ficult. Some may perceive their forced immigration to be the
result of oppression, while others may view their voluntary
immigration as an opportunity for social mobility (Ogbu,
1983; Ogbu & Simons, 1994).
Research supporting either the economic imperative or
the critical resistant perspective is underdeveloped. Both
perspectives have been construed on the basis of limited
observations about globalization and its influences on educa-
tion, teaching, and teacher education. The proponents of the
economic imperative perspective have capitalized on the
needs for a competitive workforce and based their reform
agenda on the benefits of training such a workforce while
often failing to recognize the potentially devastating conse-
quences of globalization on society, culture, and traditions.
While making careful observation of the suffering that glo-
balization brings to many marginalized groups, the propo-
nents of the critical resistant perspective have often failed to
recognize that globalization can substantially improve the
lives of millions and that what happens in one place or coun-
try is intricately related to what happens in others. As
Michael Apple points out in this issue, these situations and
their relationships are important parts of the realities of glo-
balization and have to be considered seriously in initiating,
developing, and implementing any reform agenda.
Many of the assumptions underlying policy and reform
initiatives deserve further examination, articulation, and ver-
ification so that a sound knowledge base can be developed to
guide the construction and implementation of policy and
Wang et al. 117
practice related to globalization (Cuban, 1993). For example,
from the economic imperative perspective, the assumption
that externally established curriculum standards and account-
ability assessment systems can lead to quality teaching and
higher student performance has not been fully substantiated.
Similarly, from the critical resistant perspective, the conse-
quences of a revolutionary program for teacher and student
learning have not been sufficiently articulated.
It is a difficult though necessary task to develop a thor-
ough understanding of the influences of globalization and to
conceptualize the needs and problems shaped by globaliza-
tion as they pertain to teaching and teacher education. The
influences of globalization on teaching and teacher educa-
tion are still emerging, and the data necessary for verifying
globalization assumptions in a particular country are often
insufficient (Hiebert, 1999). International comparisons pro-
vide a useful way to examine these emerging influences and
the relationship of these influences to practices in other
countries and to test relevant theoretical assumptions.
For this issue of the Journal of Teacher Education, we
invited scholars nationally and internationally to contribute
articles, each of which examines the influence of globaliza-
tion on teaching and teacher education. The studies herein
offer a global and comparative lens to examine teacher educa-
tion either conceptually or empirically. Below, we highlight
the important arguments and findings from each article and
comment or raise questions for further research about each.
The Global Challenge of
Teaching and Teacher Education
Following a critical resistant perspective, Apple argues that
in this age of globalization, an understanding of the prob-
lems in teacher education in the United States is impossible
without a grasp of the relationship among the economic,
political, and cultural struggles of other nations worldwide in
relation to the United States. To develop such an understand-
ing and initiate effective resistance to the influence of global-
ization, researchers need to use various theoretical, historical,
and empirical resources that are intensely political, reposi-
tion their angles of thinking, and think relationally instead of
simply relying on a single theoretical lens. Apple models
such a repositioning and relational analysis using critical lit-
erature developed by scholars from various traditions in dif-
ferent countries to develop a complex picture about the
relationship between the situations of education and teacher
education in the United States and the economic, political,
social problems, and struggles in other parts of the world.
Finally, he lays out several principles that guide critical
teacher educators to understand how teacher education is
situated within globalization and to participate in the strug-
gle against the detrimental impact of global capitalism.
While articulating the critical resistant perspective, Apple
still leaves proponents of the critical resistant agenda with a
Downloaded from jte.sagepub.com at Universiti Sains Malaysia on September 20, 2011
few serious challenges that seem historically characteristic
of this perspective (Ball, 2009). How can they generate suf-
ficient political and financial support from the existing sys-
tem to shape the policy making related to teaching and
teacher education on a large scale? How can they incorporate
and actualize revolutionary ideals and principles into spe-
cific curriculum and teaching practices in existing teacher
education programs? Will their curriculum and instruction
be effective in influencing teaching and teacher education
against global capitalism?
Important Knowledge for Teaching
and Effective Teacher Education
One assumption underlying current teaching reform from an
economic imperative perspective is that teachers content
and pedagogical content knowledge shape their teaching
practice in preparing students with specialized knowledge
and skills to compete in the global economy (National Board
for Professional Teaching Standards, 2002). Mathematics
literacy is an important part of that knowledge and skill set
(National Research Council, 1989; Nebres, 1999). Accord-
ingly, teacher educators need to investigate the extent to
which preservice teachers content, pedagogical content, and
general pedagogical knowledge for mathematics teaching
are related to learning opportunities in their teacher educa-
tion programs (Tatto et al., 2008). The following five articles
in this issue explore various aspects of this general assump-
tion drawing on survey data collected from preservice teach-
ers, teacher educators, and administrators from different
kinds of teacher education institutions in 15 countries in the
Teacher Education and Development Study in Mathematics
(TEDS-M).
Two of these studies address the quality and variations of
preservice teachers opportunities to learn mathematics con-
tent and pedagogical content knowledge in their programs.
Tatto and Senk describe systematically the rationale, design,
sampling, and instruments of TEDS-M and then, drawing
from 15 participating countries, outline findings related to
preservice teachers opportunities to learn mathematics con-
tent and pedagogical content knowledge in their programs.
The study showed that there were substantial differences
in the structure and conception by grade level and
degree of specialty among teacher education programs across
15 countries. The opportunities for preservice teachers to
learn mathematics content and mathematics pedagogical
content knowledge in their programs were related to the
respective programs conceptions about mathematics knowl-
edge that preservice teachers need to teach on the basis of the
pre-K to high school curriculum in their various contexts.
These differences in learning opportunities were also posi-
tively related to preservice teachers performance on the
assessment of their mathematics knowledge and mathemat-
ics pedagogical content knowledge.
118 Journal of Teacher Education 62(2)
Schmidt, Cogan, and Houang analyze and compare the
TEDS-M survey data from future middle and elementary
mathematics teachers in 81 U.S. institutions to data from
preservice teachers in the countries where the highest test
performance in mathematical content and pedagogical con-
tent knowledge was achieved. They found that in the top-
performing countries, preservice teachers took almost half of
their education coursework related to mathematics, which
was more than their poorer performing U.S. counterparts
did. Across U.S. institutions, there were variations in what
constituted teacher preparation with respect to the amount of
mathematics coursework and the proportion of coursework
associated with mathematics pedagogical content and gen-
eral pedagogy courses.
The coursework taken by preservice teachers showed a
relationship to the professional competencies of preservice
teachers in terms of mathematics content, pedagogical con-
tent, and pedagogical knowledge. Future research can add a
more persuasive and specific interpretation of the relation-
ship between preservice teachers course-taking patterns and
their acquired mathematics content and pedagogical content
knowledge by examining whether and to what extent the pat-
terns of coursework in the low-achieving countries are similar
to or different from those in the United States and top-
performing countries.
The above two studies identified the relationship between
the different patterns in mathematics and mathematics peda-
gogical courses taken by preservice teachers in different pro-
grams and countries and their subsequent test performance in
these areas. Several challenging questions arise. For exam-
ple, what are useful coursework patterns that lead preservice
teachers in different countries to display higher performance
in the acquisition of mathematics content, pedagogical content,
and pedagogical knowledge? What are the specific theoreti-
cal interpretations of these patterns? Can such patterns be
sustained with preservice teachers from countries that vary
economically, socially, and politically?
Drawing on performance data in mathematics content and
pedagogical content knowledge from TEDS-M, Blmeke,
Suhl, and Kaiser explore whether factors such as gender and
second language learning influenced preservice teachers
mathematics knowledge for teaching across different coun-
tries. The study revealed that teachers from Taiwan and
Singapore had the highest mean scores in both mathematics
content and pedagogical content knowledge, while U.S. pre-
service teachers showed scores only slightly higher than the
international mean in mathematics content knowledge and
relatively higher scores in mathematics pedagogical content
knowledge. However, none of the countries was able to pre-
pare preservice teachers successfully in both mathematics
content and pedagogical content knowledge across gender
and language differences. Generally speaking, being a
native speaker of the language of instruction was advanta-
geous for preservice teachers, and in most countries, men
Downloaded from jte.sagepub.com at Universiti Sains Malaysia on September 20, 2011
outperformed women on tests of mathematics content. In the
United States, men and women performed similarly on
mathematics pedagogical content knowledge, but men had
higher test scores on mathematics content knowledge.
Koenig, Blmeke, Paine, Schmidt, and Hsieh conceptual-
ize general pedagogical knowledge and use this conception
to analyze the TEDS-M data related to general pedagogical
knowledge from preservice middle school teachers in the
United States, Germany, and Taiwan. Their analysis sug-
gests that future middle school teachers from Germany and
Taiwan significantly outperformed their U.S. counterparts in
general pedagogical knowledge. Future U.S. middle school
teachers had relative strengths in generating classroom strat-
egies but weaknesses in recalling knowledge and analyzing
problems in comparison to their counterparts from Germany
and Taiwan. In addition, participants from Taiwan and
Germany had more opportunities to learn and acquire declar-
ative knowledge, whereas U.S. preservice teachers had more
occasions to acquire procedural knowledge.
Drawing on the survey data from preservice mathematics
teachers at the primary and lower secondary levels and
teacher educators in TEDS-M, the last article in this group,
authored by Hsieh and Law, examines the relationship
between the coherence of coursework and field experiences,
the curriculum arrangement in the programs, and overall
program effectiveness on the basis of the perceptions of pre-
service teachers and teacher educators. The study revealed
that although preservice teachers in all 15 participating coun-
tries rated their course instructors and field placement men-
tors as effective, the perceived effectiveness of instructors
did not produce statistically important influences on preser-
vice teachers performances in the test of their mathematics
content, pedagogical content, and pedagogical knowledge
for teaching mathematics. Preservice teachers in all coun-
tries, except for Norway and Germany, rated the coherence
of program courses lower than their instructors did. U.S. pre-
service teachers rated their programs in terms of the coher-
ence of their coursework and field experiences highest
among all countries, even though their ratings on overall
effectiveness of their program were relatively low.
The study suggests that preservice teachers in most coun-
tries tended to rate their program coherence higher and the
effectiveness of their program lower. However, their ratings
did not seem to influence the level and depth of knowledge
that they demonstrated as they exited the program. This find-
ing raises a question about the relationship between the
assumed effectiveness of coherent programs and what pre-
service teachers actually learned from their programs.
Contexts for Teaching
in an Era of Globalization
In his article, Schleicher describes the results of the Teaching
and Learning International Survey, sponsored by the
Wang et al. 119
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development,
with over 70,000 teachers and principals in 23 countries. The
survey provided perspectives of teachers and principals con-
cerning the contexts for teaching. Most school principals
reported that there were severe student discipline problems in
schools and that teachers were often late, absent, and not well
prepared for teaching. They also reported that they needed
qualified teachers, personnel, and adequate equipment that
supported effective instruction. Teachers reported that they
needed additional professional development on how to work
with the increasing numbers of diverse groups of students,
how to use information and communication tools, and how to
manage student behavior problems, which often caused the
loss of 30% to 50% of instructional classroom time. Never-
theless, the majority of teachers were satisfied with their jobs
and believed they were making a difference in their students
learning. Many of the teachers across the 23 nations sought
and invested a significant amount of time and money to learn
a wider repertoire of pedagogical strategies to grapple with
the challenges in their classrooms. Most teachers valued
feedback from their school principals and colleagues and
thought that this feedback was fair and helpful and made a
difference in their teaching practices.
Although U.S. teachers were not included in the study,
Schleicher summarizes information about school contexts
for teachers and administrators in many parts of the world.
The study revealed that there is a general lack of profes-
sional, financial, and technological resources necessary for
their work. It provides us with a cogent reminder that in this
era of globalization conditions of teaching and learning are
determinant in teacher efficacy.
Afterword
Globalization is a powerful and emergent influence on educa-
tion that has made its way into educational policies at both
state and national levels and is influencing teaching practices
and teacher education. However, our understanding of this
influence is at the level of theoretical assumptions with little
more than anecdotal observation as support. Theoretical
assumptions about globalization deserve further conceptual-
ization using different perspectives and scholarship traditions
with empirical verification. We hope the conceptual and
empirical articles presented in this issue will enrich some of
the important debates over educational issues and take us
closer to understanding the realities of the era of globalization
and its influence on teaching and teacher education.
References
Apple, M. W. (2001). Markets, standards, teaching, and teacher
education. Journal of Teacher Education, 52(3), 182-196.
Ball, A. F. (2009). Toward a theory of generative change in cultur-
ally and linguistically complex classrooms. American Educa-
tional Research Journal, 46(1), 45-72.
Downloaded from jte.sagepub.com at Universiti Sains Malaysia on September 20, 2011
Banks, J. A. (2008). Diversity, group identity, and citizenship edu-
cation in a global age. Educational Researcher, 37(3), 129-139.
Bates, R. (2008). Teacher education in a global context: Towards a
defensible theory of teacher education. Journal of Education for
Teaching, 34(4), 277-293.
Burbules, N. C., & Torres, C. A. (Eds.). (2000). Globalization and
education: Critical perspectives. New York: Routledge.
Cuban, L. (1993). How teachers taught: Constancy and change in
American classrooms, 1890-1990 (2nd ed.). New York: Teach-
ers College Press.
Darling-Hammond, L., & Cobb, V. L. (1996). The changing con-
text of teacher education. In F. B. Murray (Ed.), The teacher
educators handbook: Building a knowledge base for the
preparation of teachers (pp. 14-60). San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Delandshere, G., & Petrosky, A. (2004). Political rationales and
ideological stances of the standards-based reform of teacher
education in the US. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20, 1-15.
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Herder
& Herder.
Garca, E., Arias, M. B., Murri, N.J.H., & Serna, C. (2010). Devel-
oping responsive teachers: A challenge for a demographic real-
ity. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(1-2), 132-142.
Gay, G. (2000). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research,
and practice. New York: Teachers College Press.
Giroux, H. A. (2001). Teachers, public life, and curriculum reform.
Peabody Journal of Education, 69(3), 35-47.
Giroux, H. A., & McLaren, P. (1986). Teacher education and the
politics of engagement: The case for democratic schooling.
Harvard Educational Review, 53(3), 213-238.
Hiebert, J. (1999). Relationships between research and the NCTM
standards. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education,
30(1), 3-19.
Kumashiro, K. K. (2010). Seeing the bigger picture: Troubling
movements to end teacher education. Journal of Teacher Edu-
cation, 61(1-2), 56-65.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1994). The dreamkeepers: Successful teachers
of African American children. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1999). Preparing teachers for diversity: His-
torical perspectives, current trends, and future directions. In
L. Darling-Hammond & G. Sykes (Eds.), Handbook of policy
and practice (pp. 86-124). San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
Longview Foundation. (2008). Teacher preparation for the global
age: The imperative for change. Silver Spring, MD: Author.
Loomis, S., Rodriguez, J., & Tillman, R. (2008). Developing into
similarity: Global teacher education in the twenty-first century.
European Journal of Teacher Education, 31(3), 233-245.
McLaren, P., & Farahmandpur, R. (2001). Teaching against global-
ization and the new imperialism: Toward a revolutionary peda-
gogy. Journal of Teacher Education, 52(2), 136-150.
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 (pp. 1-24).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
120 Journal of Teacher Education 62(2)
National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. (2002).
What teachers should know and be able to do. Arlington, VA:
Author.
National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education.
(2002). Professional standards for the accreditation of
schools, colleges, and departments of education. Washington,
DC: Author.
National Council for the Social Studies. (1994). Expectations of
excellence: Curriculum standards for social studies. Washington,
DC: Author.
National Council of Teachers of English & International Reading
Association. (1996). Standards for the English language arts.
Urbana, IL: Authors.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles
and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
National Governors Association. (2008). Benchmarking for suc-
cess: Ensuring U.S. students receive a world-class education.
Washington, DC: Author.
National Research Council. (1989). Everybody counts: A report to
the nation on the future of mathematics education. Washington,
DC: National Academy Press.
National Research Council. (1996). National science education
standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Nebres, B. F. (1999). International benchmarking as a way to improve
school mathematics achievement in the era of globalization. In
G. Kaiser, E. Luna, & L. Huntley (Eds.), International compari-
son in mathematics education (pp. 200-212). Philadephia, PA:
Falmer.
Ogbu, J. U. (1983). Minority status and schooling in plural societ-
ies. Comparative Education Review, 27(2), 168-190.
Downloaded from jte.sagepub.com at Universiti Sains Malaysia on September 20, 2011
Ogbu, J. U., & Simons, H. D. (1994). Cultural models of school
achievement: A quantitative test of Ogbus theory (A Compara-
tive Study No. Project 12.). Berkeley: University of California,
Berkeley.
Spring, J. (1998). Education and the rise of the global economy.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Stromquist, N. (2002). Education in a globalized world: The con-
nectivity of economic power, technology, and knowledge. New
York: Rouledge.
Stromquist, N. P., & Monkman, K. (2000). Globalization and edu-
cation: Integration and contestation across cultures. Lanham,
MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Tatto, M. T. (2006). Education reform and the global regulation of
teachers education, development, and work: A cross-cultural
analysis. International Journal of Educational Research, 45(4-5),
231-241.
Tatto, M. T. (Ed.). (2007). Reforming teaching globally. Oxford,
UK: Symposium Books.
Tatto, M. T., Schwille, J., Senk, S., Ingvarson, L., Peck, R., & Rowley,
G. (2008). Teacher Education and Development Study in Mathe-
matics (TEDS-M): Policy, practice, and readiness to teach primary
and secondary mathematics. Conceptual framework. East Lansing:
Teacher Education and Development International Study Center,
College of Education, Michigan State University.
Torres, C. A. (2002). Globalization, education, and citizenship:
Solidarity versus markets? American Educational Research
Journal, 39(2), 363-378.
Zhao, Y. (2010). Preparing globally competent teachers: A new
imperative for teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education,
61(5), 422-431.