In these precarious times, children and youth require (and are demanding) education on how to address the myriad of convergent global challenges. 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).

On review of authoritative texts (OECD, UN, UNESCO, UNICEF) on global citizenship, we see global citizenship education as centring 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. There are multiple 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., Torres, 2017); 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). We take a critical theory approach informed by Carlos Torres (2017) with emphases on social justice, diversity and difference, peace, planetary rights and responsibilities and local and global political participation. We also draw from Vanessa de Oliveira Andreotti (2014) who argues that “responsible education in current “global times” requires a deeper understanding of the social, cultural, economic and historical forces and flows that connect peoples, places, spaces and world views, and of the difficulties of intervening in complex and dynamic systems” (p. 33).

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). However, the space afforded to GCE remains contested in Australian education policy pronouncements (Peterson, 2020). 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).

To support teacher uptake of global citizenship education in Australia, we searched for and mapped open-access global citizenship education materials to create a systematic, research-based resource catalogue for teachers and students. Our scoping study inquiry broadly asked: what are the open access online curricular resources available for critical global citizenship education? With the following sub-questions:

1. 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)?

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

We employed a scoping study (as developed by Arksey and O’Malley, 2005) to examine each resource’s alignments with Australian Curricula and global GCE frameworks and identified the areas where there is insufficient resourcing. In this project, we endeavoured to meet the first (a rapid review of materials maps the field of study where it is difficult to visualise the range of materials available), third (a summary for disseminating findings to policymakers and practitioners), and fourth (identify the gaps and points to areas for further research) rationales for scoping research that Arksey and O’Malley propose. 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. Our scoping study mapping exercise adapted Arksey and O’Malley’s six key processes. One – Identifying research questions: We developed sub-questions a) to support Australian teacher application as study was located in Australia; and subquestion b) to support the application of these international frameworks in Australia and to enable international use of the catalogue. Two - 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. Three - Resources selection: 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. Attention to key terms of global citizenship (as identified by project’s literature review of GCE) also guided the selection of resources. Four - Charting the data: The curriculum resources were assessed for suitability (as per prior criteria) and coded according to a set of indicators (education sector; OECD dimensions of global competence; and seventeen SDGs). Five - Collating, summarising, and reporting results: While following the above process, the scoping study was iterative and generative rather than linear in execution, with categories for resource collation iteratively reviewed. Six – 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 with the project’s advisory group and GCE experts throughout the research from May to November 2022.

Results showed that of the 252 resources scoped most were targeted to primary (n=143) and secondary school students (n=145), with only 23 materials deliberately targeted to early childhood education. The resources highlight the building of four Australian Curriculum (ACARA, 2022) general capabilities. There is equal emphasis on critical and creative thinking (n = 90), personal and social capability (n = 90), and ethical understanding (n = 90), with notably fewer resources focussing on intercultural understanding (n = 67), though it was common for a single resource to be coded for all four general capabilities. The materials were spread across all seventeen UN SDGs (United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, n.d). Most related 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 wellbeing when these significant issues affect education. Across the OECD global competence dimensions, the majority (n = 97) were mainly on the examination of issues of global and local significance (Dimension 1), followed by Dimension 2 (Understand and appreciate the perspectives and worldviews of others) (n = 70). Fewer materials push the narrative to open communications (n = 46) across cultures (Dimension 3). 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). The outcome of the scoping study generated an open access GCE resource catalogue https://enablingyoungvoicesforcivicaction.com/resource-catalogue/ that continues to be added to and is utlised by teachers and student teachers across multiple nations.

Andreotti, V. (2010). Global education in the ‘21st century’: Two different perspectives on the ‘post-’ of postmodernism. International Journal of Development Education and Global Learning, 2(2), 5–22. Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA) (2022). The Australian curriculum ver. 9.0. Retrieved from https:// v9.australiancurriculum.edu.au/ Arksey, H., & O’Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(1), 19–32. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 13645 57032 00011 9616 Buchanan, J., Burridge, N., & Chodkiewicz, A. (2018). Maintaining global citizenship education in schools: A challenge for Australian educators and schools. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 43(4), 51–67. Clark, H., Coll-Seck, A. W., Banerjee, A., Peterson, S., Dalglish, S. L., Ameratunga, S., Balabanova, D., Bhan, M. K., Bhutta, Z. A., Borrazzo, J., Claeson, M., Doherty, T., El-Jardali, F., George, A. S., Gichaga, A., Gram, L., Hipgrave, D. B., Kwamie, A., Meng, Q., Mercer, R., Costello, A. (2020). A future for the world’s children? A WHO–UNICEF–Lancet commission. The Lancet, 395(10224), 605-658. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(19)32540-1 Collins, H. (1992). Political literacy: Educating for democracy. Papers on parliament, 14, https:// www.aph.gov.au/About_Parli ament/Senate/Powers_ practice_n_ procedures/ pops/pop14/ c03 Gaudelli, W. (2016). Global citizenship education: Everyday transcendence. Routledge. OECD. (2018a). The future of education and skills: Education 2030—The future we want. OECD. OECD (2018b). PISA 2018b Global competence. Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/pisa/ innovation/global- competence/# de Oliveira Andreotti, V. (2014). Critical and transnational literacies in international development and global citizenship education. Journal of education, 2 (3), 32-50. Peterson, A. (2020). Global citizenship education in Australian schools: Leadership, teacher and student perspectives. Springer Nature. Sharma, N. (2018). Value-creating global citizenship education: Engaging Gandhi, Makiguchi, and Ikeda as examples. Springer. Thomas, M., Banki, S. (2021). Toward a framework for assessing the 'global' and 'citizen' in global citizenship education in Australia and beyond. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 42(5), 732-748. Tierney, R. J. (2018). Toward a Model of Global Meaning Making. Journal of Literacy Research, 50(4), 397-422. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086296X18803134 Torres, C.A. (2017). Theoretical and empirical foundations of critical global citizenship education. Routledge. Torres, C. A., & Bosio, E. (2020). Global citizenship education at the crossroads: Globalization, global commons, common good, and critical consciousness. Prospects, 48, 99–113. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (n.d). Sustainable development: The 17 goals. https://sdgs.un.org/goals