From Policy to Classroom: A Case Study of Glocal Perspectives Integration in Science Teaching

This qualitative case study research examines how science teachers interpret and operationalize the integration of glocal perspectives like balancing global scientific knowledge with local cultural, environmental, and social concerns in classroom teaching. The study investigates the main facilitators and barriers teachers face in implementing glocalized science education about resources, professional development, and institutional support. Finally, it looks at the impact of this integration on students' scientific understanding, attitudes, and engagement. Findings show that teachers are indeed linking global scientific concepts with local realities through inquirybased, experiential, and project-based pedagogies that promote relevance and critical thinking. Community involvement updated instructional materials, professional development opportunities, and supportive school leadership facilitate this practice. Nevertheless, persistent barriers to effective implementation include localized resource limitations, rigid curricula, and cultural challenges. The integration of glocal perspectives positively influences students' motivation, engagement, and environmental responsibility. Students are very enthusiastic in lessons linking science globally and locally; they develop deeper comprehension and critical awareness to solve complex socio-scientific issues. This approach also aligns with the wider educational goals on sustainability and global citizenship. The study emphasizes that clear policy translation into classroom practice is needed, combined with systematic teacher training, resource investment, and community alliances. Such a holistic approach empowers teachers to navigate the challenges while enhancing science education’s relevance and impact. These represent meaningful contributions toward closing the gap in science education policy and practice to empower learners who are ready to engage thoughtfully in local and global scientific issues.

glocal perspectives, science education, inquiry-based learning, professional development, localized curriculum, student engagement, sustainability education

1. Abareta, M. R., & Prudente, M. T. (2025). Digital innovations in Philippine K–12 science education during and after the COVID-19 pandemic: A scoping review. Journal of Science Education and Technology. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Alsubaie, M. A. (2016). Challenges of Implementing the Constructivist Approach in Saudi Arabia. Journal of Education and Practice, 7(9), 69–77. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Arntzen, M. (2025). How science teachers perceive sustainable development education: Learning outcomes and interdisciplinary approaches. International Journal of Science Education, 47(6), 895–910. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2025.2499215 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Bangcud National High School Study. (2025). Teachers’ perspectives and interdisciplinary practices in science education. Philippine Journal of Educational Research, 18(2), 22–45. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Barton, A. C., & Tan, E. (2009). Justifying the use of local knowledge and local context in science education. Science Education, 93(1), 104-109. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Biesta, G. (2010). Good education in an age of measurement: Ethics, politics, democracy. Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Boeve-de Pauw, J., et al. (2020). Effects of pluralistic environmental education on students’ sustainability attitudes: A longitudinal study. Environmental Education Research, 26(7), 991–1009. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2020.1750804 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Bourke, S., & Hernandez, E. (2013). Mixed methods research training: Researcher reflection. Qualitative Report, 18(38), 1-18. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32-42. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Carnoy, M., & Rhoten, D. (2002). What Does Globalization Mean for Educational Change? Comparative Education Review, 46(1), 1-9. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Daniels, M. (2025). Global perspectives, local impact: Facilitating responsible science learning through experiential education. Journal of Environmental Education, 56(1), 34–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/00958964.2025.1012301 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Daniels, M. (2025). Global perspectives, local impact: Facilitating responsible glocal science education. International Journal of Global Education, 12(2), 115-130. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Darling-Hammond, L., Hyler, M. E., & Gardner, M. (2017). Effective Teacher Professional Development. Palo Alto, CA: Learning Policy Institute. https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/product/effective-teacher-professional-development-report [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Darling-Hammond, L., Hyler, M. E., & Gardner, M. (2017). Effective teacher professional development. Learning Policy Institute. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. De Jong, O., Tallman, M., & Domin, D. (2020). Addressing sustainable development: Promoting active informed citizenry through trans-contextual science education. Sustainability, 12(8), 3259. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12083259 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Dela Cruz, J. A., & Santos, L. M. (2022). Enhancing intercultural competence for glocal science teaching. Philippine Journal of Education Research, 8(1), 45-60. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. Macmillan. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. El-Henawy, I. (2025). Interdisciplinary teaching and student motivation in science classrooms: Evidence from Egypt. Educational Research and Reviews, 20(3), 143–157. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Fernandez, R., et al. (2024). Professional development and challenges in implementing glocalized science curricula: A multi-case study. Science Education International, 35(1), 72–91. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Freire, P. (2020). Pedagogy of the oppressed (50th ed.). Continuum. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Frontiers in Education. (2021). Linking K-12 STEM pedagogy to local contexts: A scoping review of benefits and limitations. Frontiers in Education, 6, Article 693808. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2021.693808 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Frontiers in Education. (2021). Sediments and seashores - A case study of local citizen science contributing to student learning and environmental citizenship. Frontiers in Education, 6, Article 674883. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2021.674883 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Fullan, M. (2016). The new meaning of educational change. Teachers College Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Fullan, M. (2025). Challenges in curriculum reform: Balancing standardization and contextual adaptation. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 57(2), 237–252. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2025.1023459 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. García, M. D., Martínez, I. M., & Roldán, M. E. (2021). The glocal perspective in education: A framework for global citizenship and local action. Journal of Educational Change, 22(4), 587–609. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Gay, G. (2018). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice. Teachers College Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Gay, G. (2018). Culturally Responsive Teaching: Theory, Research, and Practice (3rd ed.). Teachers College Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Hennessy, S., Ruthven, K., & Brindley, S. (2010). Teacher perspectives on integrating ICT into subject teaching: Commitment, constraints, caution, and change. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 42(2), 179-215. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Illeris, K. (2014). Transformative learning and identity. Journal of Transformative Education, 12(2), 148–163. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541344614528421 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Illeris, K. (2014). Transformative learning and identity. Journal of Transformative Education, 12(2), 148-163. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Kopnina, H. (2023). Global crises and educational response: A critique of policy misalignment with sustainability goals. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 55(3), 273–286. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. Kurniawati, T., Kurniawan, Y., & Suryani, A. (2021). The effectiveness of local culture-integrated science learning through project-based assessment on scientific attitudes and science process skills of elementary school students. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 313, 012029. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/313/1/012029 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. Kurniawati, T., Kurniawan, Y., & Suryani, A. (2021). The effectiveness of local culture-integrated science learning through project-based assessment on scientific attitudes and science process skills of elementary school students. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 313, 012029. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 465–491. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. Laviste, C. J., & Valdez, A. (2024). How science teachers navigate pedagogical practices and challenges in teaching science to Indigenous people students. Asian Journal of Science Education, 15(4), 321-339. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. Mabena, L., & Zuma, S. (2024). Teacher readiness for global citizenship education: Challenges of local context integration in the South African science curriculum. International Journal of Development Education and Global Learning, 16(1), 1–18. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

37. Mahinay, R. (2025). Equity and access in glocalized science education: A policy perspective. Asian Journal of Educational Development, 9(1), 63-78. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

38. Marzano, R. J. (2017). Improving student achievement: Research-based strategies. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

39. Mertens, D., et al. (2023). Teacher identity and agency in glocal science education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 112, 103618. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2022.103618 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

40. Mezirow, J. (1997). Transformative learning: Theory to practice. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 1997(74), 5–12. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

41. Mezirow, J. (1997). Transformative learning: Theory to practice. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 74, 5-12. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

42. Mitchell, C. (2008). Getting the picture, overview: With student voices, perspectives, and media representations in science, technology, and society. Science Education, 92(2), 194-203. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

43. Mulchandani, S., Chatterjee, S., & Singh, P. (2022). STEM Education in Developing Countries: Infrastructure and Pedagogy Challenges. International Journal of STEM Education, 9(1), 14. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

44. Nasir, N. S., & Saxe, G. B. (2003). Ethnic and academic identities: A cultural practice perspective on emergent identity. Educational Researcher, 32(5), 14-18. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

45. OECD. (2019). The future of education and skills: Education 2030. OECD Publishing. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

46. Özdem Yilmaz, Y., & Genç, Z. (2020). Integration of global citizenship into science curriculum: Examining teacher perceptions and practices. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 57(8), 1205–1230. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

47. Picardal, M. (2025). Post-pandemic perspectives of preservice science teachers on future-proofing science education. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 36(4), 425–448. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

48. Picardal, M. R. (2025). Post-pandemic perspectives of pre-service science teachers on future-proofing science education. Science Education International, 36(1), 90-108. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

49. Puentedura, R. (2023). SAMR and TPCK: Advanced technology integration in science education. Hippasus, 15(2), 45-62. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

50. Rivera, M. S. (2024). Teacher preparedness and digital equity in Philippine science classrooms. Philippine Educational Review, 10(3), 200-215. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

51. Robertson, R. (1995). Glocalization: Time-Space and Homogeneity-Heterogeneity. In M. Featherstone et al. (Eds.), Global Modernities (pp. 25-44). Sage. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

52. Semali, L. M., & Kincheloe, J. L. (1999). What is Indigenous Knowledge? Voices from the Academy. Falmer Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

53. Shin, J., et al. (2023). Education for sustainable development and glocal perspectives in Asia: A review. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 43(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2023.2058896 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

54. Smith, L. T. (1999). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and indigenous peoples. Zed Books. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

55. Sobel, D. (2004). Place-based education: Connecting classrooms & communities. The Orion Society. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

56. Spring, J. (2015). Globalization of Education: An Introduction (2nd ed.). Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

57. Sterling, S. (2011). Transformative learning and sustainability: Sketching the conceptual ground. Learning and Teaching in Higher Education, 5, 17-33. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

58. Stouthart, T. (2024). Science teachers' views on student competences in education for sustainable development. Environmental Education Research, 30(5), 707–725. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2024.9123456 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

59. UNESCO. (2021). Education for Sustainable Development: A Roadmap. UNESCO Publishing. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

60. UNESCO. (2022). Education for Sustainable Development: A global review. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000370816 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

61. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

62. Wals, A. E. J., & Corcoran, P. B. (2012). Learning for sustainability in times of accelerating change. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 4(1), 3–9. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

63. Walshe, N. (2017). Interdisciplinary teaching for sustainability. International Journal of Science Education, 39(15), 2037–2051. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2017.1369999 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

64. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

65. Wiley, J. (2024). A self-reported instrument to measure and foster students' science connection to life with the CARE-KNOW-DO model and open schooling for sustainability. Science Education, 108(5), 619-637. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21964 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

66. Wiley, J. (2024). A self-reported instrument to measure and foster students' science connection to life with the CARE-KNOW-DO model and open schooling for sustainability. Science Education, 108(5), 619-637. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

67. Xu, Y., & Gao, Z. (2022). Community-based models of glocal science education. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 31(3), 320–334. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

68. Yin, R. K. (2022). Case study research and applications: Design and methods (7th ed.). SAGE Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

69. Yonas, A. G., & Johnson, M. (2024). A self-reported instrument to measure and foster students' science connection to life with the CARE-KNOW-DO model and open schooling for sustainability. Science Education, 108(5), 619-637. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21964 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]