This paper explores the rise of anticipatory governance by international organizations (IOs) and global technology corporations through the deployment of global agendas to govern education futures (Berten & Kranke, 2022; Miller, 2018; Poli, 2018). In recent years, international organizations have taken up the role of ‘guardians of the future’ through their work on education visions (Robertson, 2022). Simultaneously, the Covid-19 crisis not just accelerated global technology corporations to embed educational technology (EdTech) in the classroom but also to bypass national laws and security concerns (Williamson & Hogan, 2020). Thus, taken together, education visions and EdTech are global agendas that play an influential role in contemporary education policies and practice, particularly in the governing of futures in education. Global agendas are a broad term, and I follow the definition of Elfert and Ydesen (2023) that global agendas act “as a key instrument of the global governance of education and are global targets that aim at uniting all relevant actors – national governments, IOs, non-governmental organizations, and other non-state actors behind a supposedly universal agenda of critical significance” (p. 200). Therefore, in such scenario, global agendas in education can include agenda-setting initiatives such as Education for All (EFA), international large-scale assessments, Sustainable Development Goals 4 (Bandola-Gill et al., 2022), accountability mechanisms and other relevant agendas that function through the ‘politics of convergence’ (Elfert & Ydesen, 2023, p. 103).

In a time of uncertainty, IOs as well as technology corporations have resorted to imbue anticipatory mechanisms within their global agendas to exert their authority and gain dominance in the complex architecture of the global education landscape. In the spirit of the conference theme, this paper will investigate Google For Education (an EdTech service from global technology giant – Google) and the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA), an international large scale assessment launched by the Organization of the Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) to understand how anticipation methods and tools are utilized in order to steer education futures. Therefore, this paper seeks to understand how anticipatory governance in global agendas in education attempt to influence contemporary education policies and practice (Flyverbom & Garsten, 2022). In order to understand this, I employ a combination of qualitative content analysis and technography, to capture the anticipatory practices imbued in both Google For Education (Solomon, 2023) and PISA. I also deploy the key concepts of ‘sustainable futures’ and ‘techno-solutionism’ as conceptual frameworks to further tease out how PISA and Google For Education leverage on these two key concepts to steer education policies and practices. Initial findings suggest that the anticipatory practices in both Google For Education and PISA have considerable influence in the reorganization of education policies and practices (Gulson et al., 2021). For example, Google For Education relies on micro-credentialing professional development courses rooted in the discourse ‘preparing teachers for the future of learning’ to perpetually expand itself within teacher organisations. As for PISA, the ranking of nation-states in a vertical table creates anticipation for future rankings. Therefore, this research concludes that anticipatory governance in global agendas is on the rise as international organizations and global technology corporations seek for authority in the global education space.

This paper uses an innovative conceptual framework of two key conceptual vocabulary in a time anticipatory governance - sustainable futures and techno-solutionism. Sustainable futures are associated with the humanistic-emancipatory agenda and techno-solutionism is related to the ‘economics of education’ movement and represents the unwavering belief that technology will save us all. Based on these key words, I construct a conceptual framework that attempts to capture how global agendas leverage on these two key concepts through anticipation processes. In terms of method, I will apply “technography”, which can be described as a “descriptive social science of technology that examines human and machine/ tool interaction” (Jansen & Vellema, 2011). Simultaneously, “technography” also involves a close analysis of technical documentation and secondary sources (Perotta et al., 2021). Drawing on a close analysis of technical documentation, relevant media articles, and official guidelines from technology corporations, I will make the case for Google For Education. In terms of exploring anticipatory governance in PISA, I deploy a qualitative content analysis which involves a documentary analysis of PISA publications. This also involves concept notes, trend reports, extended reports and videos.

Initial findings suggest that the anticipatory practices in both Google For Education and PISA have considerable influence in the reorganization of education policies and practices (Gulson et al., 2021). For example, Google For Education relies on micro-credentialing professional development courses rooted in the discourse ‘preparing teachers for the future of learning’ to perpetually expand itself within teacher organisations. As for PISA, the ranking of nation-states in a vertical table creates anticipation for future rankings. Therefore, this research concludes that anticipatory governance in global agendas is on the rise as international organizations and global technology corporations seek for authority in the global education space.

Bandola-Gill, J., Grek, S., & Tichenor, M. (2022). Governing the sustainable development goals: Quantification in Global Public Policy (p. 165). Springer Nature. Berten, J., & Kranke, M. (2022). Anticipatory global governance: International Organisations and the politics of the future. Global Society, 36(2), 155-169. Elfert, M., & Ydesen, C. (2023). Global governance of education: The historical and contemporary entanglements of UNESCO, the OECD and the World Bank (Vol. 24). Springer Nature. Flyverbom, M., & Garsten, C. (2021). Anticipation and organization: Seeing, knowing and governing futures. Organization Theory, 2(3), 26317877211020325. Gulson, K., Perrotta, C., Williamson, B. & Witzenberger, K. (2021). Should We be Worried about Google Classroom? The Pedagogy of Platforms in Education. Journal of Professional Learning. Retrieved from https://cpl.asn.au/journal/semester-2-2021/should-we-be-worried-about-google-classroom-the-pedagogy-of-platforms-in Miller, R. (2018). Transforming the future: Anticipation in the 21st century (p. 300). Taylor & Francis. Morris, J., Couture, J. C., & Phelan, A. M. (2023). Riding Fences: Anticipatory Governance, Curriculum Policy, and Teacher Subjectivity. Canadian Journal of Education, 46(3), 517-544. OECD. (n.d.). Technology governance. Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/sti/science-technology-innovation-outlook/technology-governance/ Perrotta, C., Gulson, K. N., Williamson, B., & Witzenberger, K. (2021). Automation, APIs and the distributed labour of platform pedagogies in Google Classroom. Critical Studies in Education, 62(1), 97-113. Poli, R. (2017). Introduction to anticipation studies (Vol. 1). Springer. Robertson, S. L. (2022). Guardians of the future: International organisations, anticipatory governance and education. Global Society, 36(2), 188-205. Solomon, J. (2023, March 23). New tools for more collaborative, personal and accessible learning. Google Blog. Retrieved from https://blog.google/outreach-initiatives/education/bett-2023-google-for-education-updates-/ Williamson, B., & Hogan, A. (2020). Commercialisation and privatisation in/of education in the context of Covid-19.