Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Four pressing global trends—the accelerated rise of Generative Artificial Intelligence, the urgency of teaching sustainability education, the growing demand for entrepreneurial and employability skills, and the increase in human migration and mobility—have significantly shaped curricula, educational policies and practices worldwide. Continuing Professional Development (CPD) serves as a vital catalyst for educational innovation and organisational improvement, equipping educators with the skills and values needed to respond effectively to these trends in an ever-evolving educational landscape. Drawing on adult learning and problem-based learning theories, this paper examines university-led CPD programmes for international educators. Key features of university-led CPD have been identified: multidisciplinary content, communities of practice, systemic coherence and alignment, a commitment to global engagement, and the decolonisation of knowledge. We argue that effective and well-designed university-led CPD initiatives can not only address the limitations of traditional approaches but also enhance the professional growth of educators working in global contexts.

Keywords

continuing professional development university globalisation capacity building knowledge co-creation

Introduction

The world is undergoing substantial transformation influenced by rapid technological advancement, environmental crises, post-COVID socio-economic recession, and large-scale human migration. These interconnected forces are reshaping societies, placing new demands on educators. In response, education systems worldwide are updating curricula, pedagogies, and policies while simultaneously upskilling educators to navigate this evolving landscape. Continuing Professional Development (CPD) is widely regarded as one of the most effective approaches for both purposes (Jopling and Spender, 2006).

Drawing on adult learning and problem-based learning theories, we examine different dimensions of CPD (Knowles, 1985; Magwenya et al., 2023). In particular, this paper focuses on university-led CPD programmes designed for international educators. We argue that this form of CPD can address some of the limitations of conventional CPD by equipping participants with the knowledge, skills, and values needed to respond to complex global challenges. Although such programmes have gained popularity, often supported by government funding, evidence regarding their effectiveness remains limited. University-led CPD for educators from international contexts is an expanding trend that fosters cross-cultural learning and collaborative problem-solving. UK universities are among the most sought-after providers, partly due to agencies like the British Council, which actively promote their research and educational excellence globally. However, the UK is by no means the only destination—many universities worldwide, particularly leading institutions in the Global North, also offer CPD programmes that leverage their research expertise and academic culture.

This paper begins by examining the major global trends shaping education practices and policies and then explores what universities should consider when engaging international audiences through CPD programmes. This paper addresses the following questions:

What major global trends are faced by educators today?

What factors contribute to ineffective CPD programmes?

What does effective university-led CPD for educators from international contexts look like?

Four global trends shaping education curricula, policies, and practices

Rapid development of Generative Artificial Intelligence (GAI)

OpenAI's launch of ChatGPT in 2022 marked a milestone in the field of artificial intelligence. GAI, based on large language models, can perform natural language processing tasks—including translation, summarisation, visualisation, and generating human-like responses across diverse topics (Wang et al., 2024). This technological advancement offers educators opportunities to personalise learning and automate administrative tasks, while also raising concerns about academic integrity, bias, misinformation, and inequalities arising from the digital divide.

The United Arab Emirates is the first county-making AI a mandatory subject for all K-12 students (Shery, 2025). The Ministry of Education in China has issued guidelines to promote AI in basic education and urges schools to integrate AI tools into the curriculum, textbooks, and assessments (Global Times, 2025; Reuters, 2025). In India, the 2023 National Curriculum Framework mandates schools to incorporate AI into the K-12 curriculum, support students’ self-directed learning, enhance student and teacher AI preparedness, and develop digital infrastructure (Damodaran and Kanwar, 2025). The AI race, driven by both established powers and emerging economies in Asia and the Middle East, has left policymakers and educators with pressing questions about responsible AI use and developing AI literacy for educators and students. Gonzales (2024) contends that widespread fear surrounding AI tends to overshadow its potential to inspire curiosity and innovation. Many marginalised groups—such as women, people of colour, individuals with disabilities, and LGBTQ+ communities—may be further disadvantaged by this digital divide. Educators feel unprepared to integrate AI into their teaching, assess students’ AI-assisted work, address ethical concerns, and manage the risks of bias, misinformation, and inequitable access (Gonzales, 2024).

Embedding sustainability in education

UNESCO (2020) published Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) 2030: A Roadmap, which calls on educators worldwide to exercise their transformative power to achieve the 17 UN sustainable development goals (SDGs) (UNESCO, 2020: 17). Leaders and teachers play a crucial role in leading sustainability initiatives through whole-institution and community-engaged approaches. These are neither small nor easy tasks, particularly given competing priorities such as students’ academic achievement, diminishing resources, and a widening socioeconomic gap. Despite its urgency, educators worldwide often lack the resources and tools needed to lead these initiatives. UNESCO (2022) findings reveal that over 50 countries do not mention climate change in national curricula. While 95% of surveyed teachers recognise the importance of teaching climate change, fewer than 30% felt prepared to teach the topic. Furthermore, over 70% of young people lack sufficient knowledge to explain climate change.

To build educator's ESD competencies, the UNESCO Regional Bureau promotes interdisciplinary CPD programmes that incorporate climate change, biodiversity, water, and ocean literacy to equip educators with subject knowledge, critical skills, and pedagogical strategies necessary to teach these complex, interconnected environmental issues effectively (UNESCO, 2024). One example is the Green Education Partnership (GEP). Launched in 2022, GEP has brought together 86 UNESCO Member States and more than 1200 organisations to support younger generations in tackling environmental challenges (UNESCO, 2022). A key feature of GEP is its community-based approach, structured around four pillars: Greening schools, Greening curriculum, Greening teacher training and education system capacities, and Greening communities (UNESCO, 2024). Such programmes enable educators to harness both a global perspective and local ingenuity, rather than relying solely on policymakers to provide ready-made solutions to global challenges (Morote, 2023).

Entrepreneurial and employability skills

While vocational education traditionally focuses on entrepreneurial and employability skills, academically oriented schools and universities emphasise theoretical reasoning and critical thinking, often assuming that graduation from a prestigious institution ensures employability—a notion that no longer holds in the twenty-first century (Daubney, 2021b). Employers have identified notable gaps in the skills of 18- to 21-year-olds, particularly in areas such as job applications, negotiation, problem-solving, teamwork, and other essential workplace competencies (Daubney, 2021a), a gap reflected in high youth unemployment—China, for example, recorded a historic rate of 21.3% in 2023 (National Bureau of Statistics of China, 2025).

A similar skills gap exists among educators. While the European Commission, OECD, and the World Bank all recognise entrepreneurship education as a tool for global economic development, most educators lack the confidence and competence to integrate entrepreneurial and employability skills into their subjects and to prepare learners for real-world employment challenges (Smolka et al., 2024).

Human migration and mobility

The International Organisation for Migration (2024) reports 281 million international migrants (3.6% of the global population), including 73.5 million displaced by conflict and violence (Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre (IDMC), 2025). Large-scale migration challenges schools receiving students from diverse sociocultural, economic, linguistic, and religious backgrounds, often without adequate teaching or material resources. Studies reveal that refugee and migrant students in Australia, the USA, and Canada face exclusion, disengagement, and barriers linked to trauma, low language proficiency, and limited intercultural understanding (Baker et al., 2021; Molla, 2024). Similarly, urban schools in China and India are experiencing challenges from rural–urban migration, which can affect students’ academic outcomes and social integration (Xu et al., 2024).

These trends underscore the growing diversity in classrooms and the need for educators to develop cultural competence, inclusive pedagogical strategies, and adaptive teaching practices—needs that targeted CPD can address.

To sum up, educators worldwide face major global trends—technological advancement, sustainability challenges, skills gaps, and large-scale migration—that are not confined to any single country and often lie beyond their control. Morin and Kern (1999) describe these overlapping pressures as a “polycrisis,” which amplifies complexity, uncertainty, interconnectedness, and volatility, affecting educational systems and practices (Tooze, 2022; Whiting and Park, 2023). Polycrises exacerbate inequalities, teacher burnout, inter-group tensions, brain drain, and skills gaps, with one country's solution potentially creating challenges elsewhere—for example, the wide application of AI tools from high-income countries may marginalise minority cultures (Couldry and Mejias, 2019), and aggressive recruitment of teachers from Asia and Africa to Western countries undermines education quality in the Global South (UNESCO, 2021).

To navigate these challenges, educators must upskill. New forms of CPD are needed—programmes that enable the global exchange of local experiences, the identification of transferable strategies, critical reflection on power dynamics, and the promotion of collective problem-solving and decolonised educational practices.

Adult learning theory and problem-based learning theory in CPD

A scoping review identifies multiple theories for designing CPD, including adult learning, planned behaviour, social learning, problem-based learning, and reflective practice (Magwenya et al., 2023). Adult learning and problem-based learning theories are most commonly applied due to their focus on goal-oriented, contextually relevant learning that connects CPD to classroom practice and real-world challenges (Njenga, 2023). These theoretical lenses are complementary. Adult learning theory emphasises self-directed educators who draw on prior experience and align learning with professional responsibilities, fostering intrinsic motivation (Knowles, 1985; Njenga, 2023; Sun and Kang, 2022). In contrast, problem-based learning positions educators as active agents who identify workplace challenges, analyse causes, reflect on consequences, and collaboratively generate solutions (Milner and Scholkmann, 2023; Yang et al., 2023).

Taken together, these two theories suggest that CPD should be both personally relevant and professionally actionable, engaging educators in reflective, collaborative, and transformative practices. Without either perspective, CPD risks being disconnected from practice or lacking personal meaning and sustained motivation.

Barriers to effective CPD

Research highlights multiple barriers to CPD, including costs, competing commitments, personal attitudes, limited institutional support, scheduling or venue issues, and technical challenges (de Friedman, 2012; Li et al., 2023; Paor and Murphy, 2018). Poorly designed programmes that fail to meet participants’ needs can further limit CPD effectiveness.

CPD often fails when it is insensitive to local contexts, delivered as isolated interventions, or difficult to evaluate. Nationally imposed, one-size-fits-all programmes may overlook educators’ specific needs and professional agency, leaving them demotivated (OECD, 2019; Widayati et al., 2021). Theory-heavy, decontextualised interventions treat teachers as passive recipients rather than active agents, limiting long-term professional growth (Alshaikhi, 2020; Huberman and Guskey, 1995; Kumaravadivelu, 2003). While such CPD may encourage reflection, effective programmes require sustained engagement, staff buy-in, and institutional support (CSL, 2022; Fullan, 2016; Fullan and Hargreaves, 2013). Evaluation of CPD effectiveness is often inconsistent, focusing on attendance or satisfaction rather than long-term impact on practice or organisational change, divorcing from principles of adult and problem-based learning (Faizuddin et al., 2022; Muijs and Lindsay, 2008; Nicolaidou and Petridou, 2011).

University-led CPD for educators from international contexts

The final section examines university-led CPD for international educators. Examples include UK universities designing bespoke programmes for Indian school leaders to implement a new curriculum or hosting Chinese university leaders to explore best practices in industry collaboration and inclusive education. These programmes typically last one to three weeks, are delivered on campus, and often include field trips and social activities.

We focus on this form of CPD due to the growing number of government-funded programmes that leverage prestigious universities’ research, facilities, and networks to upskill K-12 and tertiary educators. Between 2012 and 2018, the Chinese Ministry of Education and the Lee Shau Kee Foundation funded 1452 Chinese university leaders to attend 66 leadership CPD programmes across eight countries (Xing and Tian, 2023). Despite its popularity, research on its value for transnational knowledge co-production, decolonisation, and network building remains limited. Drawing on our experience, we share lessons to encourage reflection and further development in the field.

Research-informed multidisciplinary CPD content

Compared to other forms, university-led CPD can draw on cutting-edge research across multiple disciplines. In recent years, both our observations and the research literature have indicated that CPD requests increasingly focus on topics such as the application of GAI in classroom teaching, student assessment, school leadership, and professional development (Cukurova et al., 2024; Ensign et al., 2024; Fakhar et al., 2024). In response to the first global challenge—the rapid development of GAI and other technology-enhanced tools—research-intensive universities are leading multidisciplinary research to explore and apply these innovations. Such initiatives have the potential to inform CPD by integrating AI pedagogy, digital literacy, and critical perspectives on equitable access to technology, equipping educators with both technical skills and ethical frameworks to address issues such as bias, misinformation, and academic integrity, while mitigating the risks of digital colonialism and ensuring that AI adoption promotes inclusivity across diverse contexts.

Other popular CPD topics where universities’ multidisciplinary expertise can be leveraged include educational challenges related to human migration and post-colonialism. Notably, participants undertaking CPD at a foreign university often feel freer to think beyond familiar policy frameworks, critically examine power dynamics embedded in education systems, and discuss how dominant ideologies shape educational policies and practices. This protected space for reflection is considered a unique strength of university-led CPD, in contrast to conventional school-based or nationally mandated CPD, which typically emphasises policy implementation and compliance.

Countries such as the UK, as major destinations for migrants and refugees, also have complex colonial histories. Scholars and practitioners in these contexts have generated extensive research on inclusive pedagogy, multilingual education, and intercultural competencies. Moreover, lessons learned from past mistakes provide valuable guidance for current practice. University-led CPD frequently draws on this body of research, equipping international educators with practical strategies to navigate linguistic diversity, engage parents effectively, and integrate displaced learners into mainstream education while avoiding common pitfalls. Such exposure strengthens educators’ capacity to teach effectively in increasingly heterogeneous classrooms, whether in conflict-affected settings or rapidly urbanising regions.

Thinking outside the box does not mean that CPD content is entirely detached from participants’ own contexts and practices. Our experience in designing and delivering CPD programmes has shown that experienced practitioners are often quick to recognise contextual differences and to assess the extent to which best practices can be adapted to their own settings. The identification and ownership of a problem is key to problem-based learning (Milner and Scholkmann, 2023). Even when certain approaches observed during field trips and school visits are not immediately applicable to their daily work, participants value the opportunity to observe and compare these practices, using them as a mirror to critically reflect on their own professional practices.

Communities of practice, not ready-made solutions

Another key feature of university-led CPD is the establishment of communities of practice, where educators share thinking tools rather than passively receive ready-made solutions. University academics excel at devising research methods to investigate real-life phenomena, and this close relationship between educational research and practice provides powerful tools for educators to explore and navigate their own challenges (Wyse et al., 2021). By connecting academics with practitioners, these networks often evolve into long-term research collaboration and expert consultancy.

Through weeks-long CPD programmes abroad, educators within the same cohort form a closely knit network in which peer learning occurs both formally and informally. Our experience also indicates that once these CPD programmes conclude, such networks often endure for decades, with peer learning continuing through group chats, bilateral visits, and the sharing of resources after participants return to their home countries.

One outcome of university-led CPD is that participants conduct action research in their own contexts, applying the research methods and theories they have learned to address real-life challenges. Action research, first proposed by Kurt Lewin, centres on the idea of research leading directly to social action (Lewin, 1946). It is a form of close-to-practice research done by practitioners, sometimes in collaboration with university academics, to generate knowledge and transform practices. The essence is democratising knowledge rather than generating universally applicable solutions (Wyse et al., 2021). University-led CPD offers practitioners opportunities to practise these research skills and invites them to consider important ethical issues intrinsic to action research, such as managing power dynamics, amplifying marginalised voices, and contributing to greater social justice.

Some notable SDG-related CPD-inspired action research projects we have supported include peace education initiatives in rural Pakistani schools, climate action projects aimed at reducing plastic use and water consumption in Indian schools, and projects to foster a culture of belonging for migrant children in urban schools in China. Follow-up conversations with CPD participants indicate increased staff buy-in and a stronger commitment to the UN SDGs and ESD. By leading these local initiatives, educators are empowered to exercise their professional agency, translating global sustainability priorities into contextually meaningful curricula and practices that address the pressing environmental, social, and cultural challenges faced by their communities.

Systemic coherence and alignment

Spillane et al., (2022) argue that a lack of coherence across different levels of the education system leads educators to talk past one another. Conventional CPD programmes often target specific groups of educators—such as system leaders, school principals, or middle leaders—but rarely adopt a cross-system approach that brings these groups together in a shared learning space. Xing and Tian's (2023) impact study of overseas leadership CPD for Chinese university leaders revealed that transforming practices and cultivating a learning culture requires a critical mass from within an institution to amplify the urgency of change, continuously monitor progress, and showcase success across all levels.

Drawing on adult learning and problem-based learning theories, university-led CPD programmes should harness participants’ prior knowledge and experiences as valuable resources for analysing and addressing specific problems relevant to their daily practice and future professional growth (Sun and Kang, 2022; Yang et al., 2023). The combination of vertical and horizontal dialogues leads to a collective commitment to organisational change across multiple levels, as well as policy support for change agents (Day et al., 2016; Sun et al., 2013).

Sharing a learning space also creates opportunities to discuss the resources and platforms required for implementing actions that emerge from CPD. A successful example is our ongoing collaboration with the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) in India. These CPD programmes brought together system leaders from CBSE—the largest examination board overseeing 30,000 schools—and principals from affiliated schools in a 20:80 ratio. The sessions addressed how to translate the 2023 national curriculum framework into practice, with a particular focus on education for sustainability, inclusion, entrepreneurship, and technology—areas that align with the four major global challenges identified in this paper. Bringing system leaders and school principals into a single CPD programme fostered alignment between policy priorities and school-level implementation, creating stronger coherence across the education system. More importantly, it gives system leaders the opportunity to directly observe how urban and rural schools translate policies and organise resources in different ways to meet the diverse needs of their students.

University's global commitment and knowledge decolonisation

Our experience shows that educators value CPD certificates awarded by reputable universities, believing that such recognition strengthens their professional profiles. Universities, particularly those highly ranked in global league tables, benefit from strong brand recognition and are therefore frequently sought after to deliver these programmes. This is supported by Xing and Tian's (2023) impact study, which found that most leaders from universities in central and western China undertook CPD at prestigious global top 100 universities, despite significant disparities in institutional resources and developmental needs.

At the same time, we have observed growth in CPD programmes offered by universities with recognised expertise in specific areas such as university–industry collaboration, student employability, vocational training, and educational innovation. Universities of applied sciences and polytechnics, for example, provide highly relevant CPD opportunities for overseas educators working in similar contexts. Ultimately, educators’ choices in the CPD market appear to be anchored by either a university's prestige or its compatibility with their institutional realities.

From a critical perspective, the dominance of university-led CPD—particularly when delivered by prestigious institutions in the Global North—raises concerns about knowledge colonisation. When CPD participants are exposed solely to pedagogical approaches, technologies, policies, and practices shaped by dominant Western epistemologies and values, there is a risk that indigenous knowledge, as well as the professional identities and expertise of educators from the Global South, may be further marginalised (Tikly et al., 2024). Such programmes can unintentionally reinforce hierarchical relationships, positioning Global South educators as recipients of “best practice” rather than as co-creators of knowledge (Andreotti, 2011).

Therefore, it is imperative that universities—particularly those from the Global North—take deliberate steps to incorporate peer learning among participants, foreground plural epistemologies, validate best practices across diverse local contexts, and encourage critical interrogation of power dynamics in education. Such CPD programmes should create space for educators from various backgrounds to present their local ingenuity and innovations alongside global perspectives. By doing so, university-led CPD can move beyond unidirectional knowledge transfer and genuinely foster co-creation of knowledge.

Conclusion

Educational curricula, policies, and practices worldwide have been profoundly shaped by rapid global transformations. The accelerated rise of GAI and other technological innovations, the urgency to advance the UN SDGs through sustainability education, mounting pressures from increasingly competitive job markets to embed employability and entrepreneurial skills, and large-scale human migration have introduced new layers of complexity for educators and learners in a globalised world. University-led CPD programmes designed for international educators, and grounded in adult and problem-based learning theories, can address many of the limitations of conventional CPD by cultivating the knowledge, skills, and values required to engage effectively with complex global challenges. In this paper, we explore different aspects of university-led CPD, including interdisciplinary, research-informed content; practice-oriented and culturally-relevant learning communities; as well as inclusive, decolonial, and socially just approaches.

This paper underscores several important implications. University academics designing CPD programmes should begin with a rigorous needs analysis and involve CPD facilitators from diverse disciplines. Universities can draw on their multidisciplinary research expertise to provide evidence-informed CPD content, while at the same time reserving space for participants’ peer learning and knowledge co-creation. Programme design should also challenge the dominance of Global North knowledge frameworks and methodologies.

CPD participants, in turn, should clearly identify their professional development needs, seek partnerships with overseas universities that deliver high-quality and contextually appropriate provision, and actively pursue opportunities for sustained research collaboration and consultancy. Involving stakeholders from multiple levels of the education system can further enrich learning and amplify impact. Finally, systematic evaluation of CPD impact through surveys and interviews is essential for assessing long-term effectiveness, particularly in understanding how participants apply newly acquired knowledge and skills in practice.

University-led CPD for educators in international contexts, although popular and often well-funded by governments and institutions, has not been widely studied by researchers. This paper seeks to encourage further discussion and critical reflection on such practices, which may contribute to a deeper understanding of the intended and unintended impacts of this form of CPD.

Footnotes

ORCID iDs

Meng Tian

Weilin Yan

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author biographies

Meng Tian is an Associate Professor in Educational Leadership and the Director of Global Engagement for the College of Social Sciences at the University of Birmingham. She also serves as a trustee on the BELMAS board, an Associate Editor for the Sage journal Educational Management, Administration & Leadership (EMAL), and as co-convenor of the European Educational Research Association (EERA) Educational Leadership Network. Her research interests include distributed leadership, social justice leadership, education policy, and the professional development of leaders and teachers in K-12 and higher education contexts. Additionally, she is enthusiastic about using arts-based research methods in education.

Weilin Yan is a PhD student at the University of Birmingham. Her research explores ways to support student teachers’ mental health during Initial Teacher Education (ITE) programmes and better prepare them for their future teaching roles. She is passionate about teacher development and mental well-being in education and is committed to making a positive impact in both fields. Before joining the University of Birmingham, she taught at Yunnan University of Finance and Economics for 13 years, focusing on Business English, General English, and International Communication studies. In addition, she has over a decade of experience teaching IELTS.

References

Alshaikhi

(2020) Self-directed teacher professional development in Saudi Arabia: EFL teachers’ perceptions. Theory and Practice in Language Studies 10(11): 1359–1369.

Andreotti

(2011) (Towards) decoloniality and diversality in global citizenship education. Globalisation, Societies and Education 9(3–4): 381–397.

Baker

Silove

Horswood

, et al. (2021) Psychological distress, resettlement stress, and lower school engagement among Arabic-speaking refugee parents in Sydney, Australia: A cross-sectional cohort study. PLoS Medicine 18(7): e1003512.

Centre for School Leadership (CSL) . (2022). Annual report. Retrieved from https://drive.google.com/file/d/1d-Boo0gEACNDgd_n9a-SqWbzOOobuRkS/view

Couldry

Mejias

(2019) The Costs of Connection: How Data Is Colonizing Human Life and Appropriating It for Capitalism. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Available at: https://www.sup.org/books/sociology/costs-connection (accessed 10 September 2025).

Cukurova

Kralj

Hertz

, et al. (2024) Professional Development for Teachers in the Age of AI. Report. European Schoolnet: Brussels, Belgium. Available at: http://www.eun.org/news/detail?articleId=11193331 (accessed 2 July 2025).

Damodaran

Kanwar

(2025) AI in School Education: Towards A Preparedness Framework. Centre for Internet and Digital Economy. Available at: https://mit-genai.pubpub.org/pub/4k9msp17 (accessed 25 May 2025).

Daubney

(2021a) “Employability is not inimical to good learning”: Rearticulating school academic curricula to surface their employability value. Journal of Work-Applied Management 13(1): 103–116.

Daubney

(2021b) “Teaching employability is not my job!”: Redefining embedded employability from within the higher education curriculum. Higher Education, Skills and Work-Based Learning 12(1): 92–106.

10.

Day

Sammons

(2016) The impact of leadership on student outcomes. Educational Administration Quarterly 52(2): 221–258.

11.

de Paor

Murphy

TRN

(2018) Teachers’ views on research as a model of CPD: Implications for policy. European Journal of Teacher Education 41(2): 169–186.

12.

Ensign

Nisly

Pardo

(2024) The future of generative AI in continuing professional development (CPD): Crowdsourcing the alliance community. Journal of CME 13(1): 2437288.

13.

Faizuddin

Azizan

Othman

, et al. (2022) Continuous professional development programmes for school principals in the 21st century: Lessons learned from educational leadership practices. Frontline Education 7: 983807.

14.

Fakhar

Lamrabet

Echantoufi

, et al. (2024) Towards a new artificial intelligence-based framework for Teachers’ online continuous professional development programs. Systematic Review. International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications (IJACSA) 15(4): 4.

15.

Friedman

(2012) Continuing Professional Development: Lifelong Learning of Millions. London: Routledge.

16.

Fullan

(2016) The New Meaning of Educational Change. 5th ed. New York: Teachers College Press.

17.

Fullan

Hargreaves

(2013) Teachers’ Development and Educational Change. London: Routledge.

18.

Global Times . (2025) China issues guidelines to promote AI education in primary and secondary schools. Global Times. Available at: https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202505/1333878.shtml (accessed 25 May 2025).

19.

Gonzales

(2024) AI literacy and the new digital divide – A global call for action. Available at: https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/ai-literacy-and-new-digital-divide-global-call-action (accessed 10 September 2025).

20.

Huberman

Guskey

(1995). Conclusion: The Diversities of Professional Development. In Guskey

Huberman

(Eds), Professional Development in Education: New Paradigms and Practices. New York: Teachers College Press, 269–-272.

21.

Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre (IDMC) . (2025) 2025 Global Report on Internal Displacement (GRID). Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre (IDMC). Available at: https://www.internal-displacement.org/publications/2025-global-report-on-internal-displacement-grid/ (accessed 1 June 2025).

22.

International Organization for Migration . (2024) World Migration Report 2024. Available at: https://www.iom.int/news/world-migration-report-2024-reveals-latest-global-trends-and-challenges-human-mobility (accessed 1 June 2025).

23.

Jopling

Spender

(2006) Leadership in school networks: Findings from the networked learning communities programme. Management in Education 20(3): 20–23.

24.

Knowles

(1985) Applications in continuing education for the health professions: Chapter five of andragogy in action. Möbius: A Journal for Continuing Education Professionals in Health Sciences 5(2): 80–100.

25.

Kumaravadivelu

(2003) Beyond Methods: Macrostrategies for Language Teaching. New Haven: Yale University Press.

26.

Lewin

(1946) Action research and minority problems. Journal of Social Issues 2(4): 34–46.

27.

Hassan

Jalil

(2023) The effectiveness of face-to-face versus online delivery of continuing professional development for science teachers: A systematic review. Education Science 13: 1251.

28.

Magwenya

Ross

Ngatiane

(2023) Continuing professional development in the last decade – A scoping review. Journal of Adult and Continuing Education 29(2): 408–437.

29.

Milner

Scholkmann

(2023) Future teachers for future societies: Transforming teacher professionalism through problem-based professional learning and development. Professional Development in Education 49(4): 739–751.

30.

Molla

(2024) Refugees and school engagement: A scoping review. Policy Futures in Education 22(8): 1625–1646.

31.

Morin

Kern

(1999) Homeland Earth: A Manifesto for the New Millennium. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

32.

Morote

Á-F

(ed.) (2023) Social sciences teaching in the face of the global challenges of the 21st century. Social Sciences 12(171).

33.

Muijs

Lindsay

(2008) Where are we at? An empirical study of levels and methods of evaluating continuing professional development. British Educational Research Journal 34: 195–211.

34.

National Bureau of Statistics of China . (2025) China youth unemployment rate. Available at: https://tradingeconomics.com/china/youth-unemployment-rate (accessed 1 June 2025).

35.

Nicolaidou

Petridou

(2011) Evaluation of CPD programmes: Challenges and implications for leader and leadership development. School Effectiveness and School Improvement 22(1): 51–85.

36.

Njenga

(2023) Teacher participation in continuing professional development: A theoretical framework. Journal of Adult and Continuing Education 29(1): 69–85.

37.

OECD (2019) Improving School Quality in Norway: The New Competence Development Model, Implementing Education Policies,. Paris: OECD Publishing.

38.

Reuters . (2025) China to Rely on Artificial Intelligence in Education Reform Bid. Reuters, 17 April. Available at: https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/china-rely-artificial-intelligence-education-reform-bid-2025-04-17/ (accessed 25 May 2025).

39.

Shery

(2025) UAE becomes first country to make AI a mandatory subject for all school grades. TEC Spectrum, 12 May. Available at: https://tecspectrum.com/happenings/uae-ai-education-mandatory-schools/ (accessed 25 May 2025).

40.

Smolka

Geradts

THJ

van der Zwan

, et al. (2024) Why bother teaching entrepreneurship? A field quasi-experiment on the behavioral outcomes of compulsory entrepreneurship education. Journal of Small Business Management 62(5): 2396–2452.

41.

Spillane

Blaushild

Neumerski

, et al. (2022) Striving for coherence, struggling with incoherence: A comparative study of six educational systems organizing for instruction. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 44(4): 567–592.

42.

Sun

Frank

Penuel

Kim

(2013) How external institutions penetrate schools through formal and informal leaders. Educational Administration Quarterly 49(4): 610–644.

43.

Sun

Kang

(2022) Learning through academic collaborations in/with the east: North American adult education scholars’ insights. Adult Education Quarterly 72(1): 3–23.

44.

Tikly

Mitchell

Barrett

, et al. (2024) Teacher Professionalism in the Global South: A Decolonial Perspective. Bristol: Bristol University Press.

45.

Tooze

(2022) Defining polycrisis – From crisis pictures to the crisis matrix. Chartbook #130 (24 June 2022). [online] Available at: https://adamtooze.substack.com/p/chartbook-130-defining-polycrisis [Accessed 13.09.2025].

46.

UNESCO . (2020) Education for Sustainable Development: A Roadmap. UNESCO. Available at: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000374802.locale=fr (accessed 25 May 2025).

47.

UNESCO . (2021) Global Education Monitoring Report, 2021/2: Non-State Actors in Education: Who Chooses? who loses? Paris: UNESCO. Available at: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000379875 (accessed 10 September 2025).

48.

UNESCO . (2022) Greening education partnership. Available at: https://www.unesco.org/en/sustainable-development/education/greening-future (accessed 10 September 2025).

49.

UNESCO . (2024) Strengthening our commitment to education for sustainable development. Available at: https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/strengthening-our-commitment-education-sustainable-development (accessed 10 September 2025).

50.

Wang

Xiao

, et al. (2024) GPT, large language models (LLMs) and generative artificial intelligence (GAI) models in geospatial science: A systematic review. International Journal of Digital Earth 17(1): 1–21.

51.

Whiting

Park

(2023) This is why ‘polycrisis’ is a useful way of looking at the world right now. World Economic Forum, available at: https://www.weforum.org/stories/2023/03/polycrisis-adam-tooze-historian-explains/ (accessed 24 May 2025)

52.

Widayati

MacCallum

Woods-McConney

(2021) Teachers’ perceptions of continuing professional development: A study of vocational high school teachers in Indonesia. Teacher Development 25(5): 604–621.

53.

Wyse

Brown

Oliver

, et al. (2021) Education research and educational practice: The qualities of a close relationship. British Educational Research Journal 47(6): 1466–1489.

54.

Xing

Tian

(eds) (2023) Impact on Higher Education Transformation and Leadership Development. Singapore: Springer. Available at: https://www.waterstones.com/book/impact-on-higher-education-transformation-and-leadership-development/xin-xing/meng-tian/9789811900693 (accessed 25 May 2025).

55.

(2024) Does the proportion of rural students affect the performance of urban students? Evidence from urban schools in China. International Journal of Educational Development 105: 102971.

56.

Yang

, et al. (2023) Application of problem-based learning (PBL) and case-based learning (CBL) in the teaching of international classification of diseases encoding. Scientific Reports 13(1): 15220.

Professional development beyond borders: University-led CPD programmes for educators in international contexts