SEA’s Science Teacher Voices Through the Modified World Café

1 Introduction

Since the global curriculum began to be re-imagined and critically discussed (Sorensen, Ydesen, & Robertson, 2021), the idealization of a future curriculum needs to be regionalized in the context of South-East Asia (SEA), as this region has its own strengths and challenges. Despite the contemporary idea of a top-down approach to gathering inputs for policy information, this research project attempts to grasp the unique perspectives of SEA’s teachers toward foresighting the curriculum of SEA.

Educational policies are usually made by government authorities, administrators, special interest groups, politicians, and bureaucrats, rarely involving teachers in the process. This means policies are made, revised, implemented, and abolished continuously or sometimes ad-hoc (Aun, 2021) with little or no input from school teachers. Even when their voices were accounted for in the process of designing the curriculum; unfortunately, their contribution seems not to have a strong influence on the final curriculum as reported by Finnanger and Prøitz (2024). Teachers’ insights and experiences in implementing policy into practice are valuable for informing policy related to the education ecosystem. However, the failure to take advantage of teacher voices places a major impediment to education improvement and meaningful reform (Kumar & Scuderi, 2000). Additionally, teachers’ limited opportunities and capabilities to inform policymakers have created a barrier, hindering their voices in policy-making (Jongmans, Beijaard, & Biemans, 1998). Despite the critical importance of including teacher voices in educational reform, teachers in Southeast Asia (SEA) remain largely excluded from policy-making processes, primarily seen as implementers rather than active partners. This exclusion leads to fragmented voices and ineffective reforms, despite teachers’ invaluable knowledge and experience.

For example, on a global scale, challenges in science education include the decline of interest among students, climate change, and international benchmarking. But do teachers in SEA have similar concerns about the present trends in science education? If their concerns differ, what are they? How do the teachers envision science education in SEA? What are their suggestions to close the gap between the current state and their ideal teaching and learning environment in SEA?

There are more than one way to involve teachers both in macro-level and in micro-level curriculum development processes. Teachers can be part of the curriculum committees which have a significant role in reform processes. However, a study conducted by Theodorou, Philippou, and Kontovourki (2017) found that in this type of involvement, teachers may feel inferior to other members, which perpetuates existing hierarchies of expertise that diminish the value of teachers’ knowledge in favour of academic experts. Another way to delve teachers’ insight as part of their involvement in the curriculum development process is through digital commentary processes. This approach was also utilised in the most recent Finnish curriculum reform (Lähdemäki, 2019). However, this approach will be difficult to use for regional contexts such as in the Southeast Asia region where all the countries have different backgrounds, contexts, and language barriers. In addition, it will take a long time to be executed. Considering these factors, a participatory method called the World Café method is intentionally selected as a method for capturing teachers’ insight in this study because of its speed (Schiele, Krummaker, Hoffmann, & Kowalski, 2022). This method enables teachers to actively discuss the influence of decisions and impact their teaching ecosystem. Specifically, this study seeks to explore how these insights can inform policy development in SEA, considering the region’s unique strengths and challenges in re-imagining its future curriculum, and provide realistic recommendations to bridge existing gaps.

Numerous literature discuss the use of World Café in down-to-top information. Aldred (2011) demonstrated that the World Café is a common approach to participatory research for policy-making concerning community development, where participants’ shared activity and inter-subjectivity encourage positive responses to issues and challenges. This method is extensively used in think tanks for strategic planning and/or participatory research-based policymaking. Tan and Brown (2005) further supported the use of World Cafés to gather diverse information, indicating its capability to bridge hierarchies and social status, engaging participants in constructive dialogue where specific themes could emerge (Brown & Isaacs, 2005). Findings from comparative analysis by Löhr, Weinhardt, and Sieber (2020) concluded that the World Café complements the depth of the findings from the semi-structured interviews and focus group discussions. The authors pointed out that the world cafe is particularly effective in facilitating participatory feedback, encouraging dialogue, and promoting shared learning. Even though the teachers are acknowledged as trained professionals at the forefront of the classroom and their voices are important to be considered in education-based policy, Cain (2017) found that teachers often challenge the use of research evidence as the basis for practical changes. To bridge the gap, the author suggested the implementation of collaborative approaches in research activities to ensure that teachers’ practical experiences and insights are also considered in the decision-making process.

In this study, a modified World Café method is used to address these research questions:

1. What are the current issues and trends in the teaching and learning ecosystem in SEA?

2. How can a desirable teaching and learning ecosystem in SEA be conceptualised in the future?

3. What realistic recommendations can bridge the gap between the current teaching and learning ecosystem and the desired future ecosystem in SEA?

This research further supports the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) governments in having more people-centric and inclusive initiatives to connect with the realities on the ground (ASEAN, 2015). At the same time, this research resonates with the SEAMEO Strategic Plan 2021–2035 and Seven Priority Areas, Industry 4.0, the ASEAN Work Plan on Education, and the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals to render the future education ecosystem responsive for the bulging youth of SEA. This study opens up the possibility of balancing realistic and idealistic teacher perspectives of policy information by promoting evidence-based knowledge in education.

2 Background

According to Lefstein and Perath (2014), the call to include teacher voices in dialogue for education reform existed more than two decades ago. It was also lamented that the amplification of teacher voices is critically important since (1) teachers have the knowledge and experience about the teaching complex realities, (2) teachers have the sense of ownership of the policy implementation, (3) teachers are less likely to leave their profession when they perceived that their voices are heard, and (4) the active participation of teachers in education-related policy corresponds to the principle of democracy. Despite widespread agreement about the critical importance of teachers’ participation in education, Govender (2008) also argued by citing several pieces of literature that most teachers are generally estranged from policy-making without meaningful participation in the policy process.

To understand the phenomenon, Croll, Abbott, Broadfoot, Osborn, and Pollard (1994) identified four models of teacher involvement in educational policy, namely (1) teachers as partners, (2) teachers as implementers of education policy, (3) teachers as opponents of government policy and (4) teachers as policymakers in practice. Within the four taxonomies identified, Govender (2008) further found that the teacher’s role is mainly acknowledged as the policy implementer, in which very often, the educational bureaucracy hands down the policy to be implemented. Notwithstanding the existing gap, the fragmented teacher voices in education policy are now acknowledged globally even in the international summit United Nations, (2022). However, teacher representation in the international agenda is geographically skewed. For instance, the Teaching and Learning Survey (TALIS, 2018) at the global level intends to include teachers’ voices globally in the policy recommendation. Among the perceived ideas proposed by TALIS (2018) as future education are knowledge co-creation, integration, connection to the real-world context, differentiated pedagogical practices to support individualised learning, utilisation of digital technology, and partnerships by creating synergies with wide arrays of society. Despite being the representation of teachers as a whole, the report just involved one representative of Southeast Asian countries in which the suggestions do not truly represent the SEA’s teachers’ voices. Recognising the concept of ‘voices of social product.’ (Blommaert, 2008, p. 427), the transcend and development of the teachers’ voices should be heard in the context of SEA’s education ecosystem without compromising the importance of the voices being heard at the global level.

The balance between the voices of SEA’s science teachers to be heard according to the national, regional, or global needs to be established from the current SEA’s science education. Since the world cafe is inclined towards the subjectivity of the context of the participants, this research attempts to capture the snapshot of the participants’ voices without generalising it to the whole SEA teacher population.

3 Current SEA’s Education at a Glance

The SEAs are associated with ten countries located south of China and east of the Indian subcontinent. Historically known as the route for Arabic-China trade, SEA is culturally and ethnically diverse, mostly has been colonised and therefore has adopted various political affinities monarch, democracies, republics, socialist or communist. As such, the education in SEA also adopted various national-level education approaches, thus making every education system in SEA unique.

Generally, Southeast Asian (SEA) countries accept that education is a fundamental human right, aligned with the United Nations and the Education for All (EFA) movement aims to provide quality basic education for all. Lee (2016) claimed that linking education to human rights ensures it is available, accessible, acceptable, and adaptable regardless of sex, ethnicity, language, religion, nationality, social origin, economic condition, and ability. Lee (2016) further reviewed the education policy structures in SEA and found that common schooling systems are either 6 + 3 + 3 or 6 + 4 + 2, with primary schooling being free and compulsory. Despite national educational policies supporting quality education, the financial difficulties, remote locations, and parental attitudes pose challenges to ensure all school-age children attend school. Data from UIS (2015) show that preschool participation rates in SEA are particularly low in certain countries like Cambodia, Laos, and Myanmar. Interestingly, primary school participation rates in these countries are above 100% because many older children, who started school late, are included in the count. However, the latest report by UIS (2024), shows that most SEA countries are progressing primary school participation at different rates.

Even though the differences in the SEA’s education are largely related to the socio-political and geo-historical background, several attempts have been made to measure the quality of education according to certain predetermined uniform standards. For instance, the Programme for International Student Assessment (Schleicher, 2019) tests ranked Singapore, an outlier, at the top of all 79 countries surveyed. Contradicted with Singapore’s disposition, the other five participating Southeast Asian countries (Malaysia, Brunei, Indonesia, Thailand and the Philippines) were listed in the 3rd and 4th tiers. Having six SEA country measures, the remaining are five non-participatory SEA countries. Meanwhile, Vietnam, the Lao PDR, Cambodia, Timor Leste, and Myanmar were among those listed by the UNESCO Institute of Statistics as landlocked (LAO PDR) or least developed nations (Cambodia, Timor Leste, and Myanmar) in which the issues of education are more inclined towards the very basic such as the access to the quality education and infrastructure.

Since the disparity of education standards across the SEAs is high, the demand for a much more contextual and practical education policy is required to be proposed at the regional level. From the regional perspective, SEA-PLM (2019) reported the alarming trends of inequities and poor learning. Six participating countries (Cambodia, Lao PDR, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines and Vietnam) have been made aware of the variation (8–92%) across the countries in reading, writing and mathematics. From the report, the variation in SEA-PLM among the students’ achievement largely depends on socioeconomic status, gender, language at home, early developmental skills and preschool experience.

In the same time, the key factors affecting student achievement include the use of textbooks, instructional time, and the educational level of teachers (Lee, 2016). Specifically, Lay and Ng (2021) found that countries with higher average science achievement allocated a higher percentage of educational hours for science teaching. Lay and Thoe also further note that these countries also supported practical science learning in science laboratories with assistance available when conducting experiments. For Lee (2016), the national standards and international benchmarking in measuring education quality can enhance teaching and learning if adequate resources are provided for teacher training.

Nevertheless, the teachers and teaching shape the quality of the education. Lee (2016) reported that many countries SEA’s educational issues are linked with inadequate teacher training, lack of motivation, need for curriculum revision, poor facilities, and insufficient textbooks. Another important hindsight reported in SEA-PLM is related to teacher attitudes, which affected the quality of teaching. The suggestion to support teacher professionalism in this region includes study opportunities, training workshops, support from advisors and inspectors, inter-school visits, and peer consultation in teacher clusters (UNESCO, 2014) for both pre-service and in-service training.

4 The World Café as a Foresight Methodology

Foresighting methods scaffold the human capacity to think about future eventualities and alternatives and discuss useful ideas about the future. UNDP (2018) released a foresight manual to cultivate the use of collective intelligence and cognitive perspectives beyond the classical top-down policy information. The use of foresighting methods emerged as among the approaches to infuse classical policy-making approaches by accepting that futures are plural, are a process, and can be envisioned through various methods. According to Inayatullah (2000) and Slaughter (2002), the foresight methods continued to be developed and refined since the 1960s, giving birth to various techniques. However, selecting specific techniques needs to be culled according to the research paradigm and environments in which it operates.

For instance, Tan and Brown (2005) explained that the World Café fosters meaningful conversations in a ‘simple yet powerful’ discourse process. He further acknowledged the strength of world café that brings all groups of sizes to engage in constructive dialogue, build personal relationships, and foster collaborative learning based on seven core design principles namely setting the context, creating a hospitable space, exploring the questions that matter, encouraging everyone’s contribution, facilitate cross-pollinate and connect diverse perspectives, inviting to listen together for patterns, insights, and deeper questions, as well as harvesting and sharing collective discoveries. Therefore, grounding on the above seven principles could provide useful guidance for anyone seeking creative ways to foster authentic dialogue with the goal of thinking together, accessing collective intelligence, and creating actionable knowledge.

The world café is also built on the assumption that people already have the wisdom and creativity within them to confront even the most difficult challenges. Brown and Isaacs (2005) agreed with Tan and Brown (2005), stating that the goal of the World Cafe is to tap into knowledge creation through a form of collective intelligence, to facilitate constructive dialogue, relationship building, collective discoveries, and collaborative learning (Fouché & Light, 2011), capacity planning (Chang & Chen, 2015), community development (Tan & Brown, 2005). The emphasis on collective intelligence in the World Café is anchored to the philosophy of appreciative enquiry (Aldred, 2011; Fouché & Light, 2011; Watkins & Mohr, 2001). This means that, as the world café encourages small group discussion, the insight of the fragments of an idea are then discussed to create a meaningful self-improving network and narratives (Lagrosen, 2019) via sensing the patterns (Brown & Isaacs, 2005) for (1) an in-depth exploration of the main challenges and possibilities, (2) sharing knowledge, stimulating innovative thinking and building community, (3) creating a rewarding interaction between speakers and public. It is also regarded as an efficient data collection method for group discussion (Schiele et al., 2022).

In practice, a World Café usually consists of three or more rounds of conversation, each lasting at least 20–30 min followed by a plenary dialogue (Lagrosen, 2019). The participants are encouraged to move around and between the rounds to change places. One person stays at each table, acts as its host, welcomes the new guests and summarises the previous discussion. The other participants come as guests to the new tables, bringing with them insights from the earlier conversations. The World Café events allow for the cross-pollination of ideas from participants of different backgrounds to inform practice and policy. As the participants move from one table to another after each session, the discussions have the potential to connect all people in the room and allow them to discuss issues ‘brought to the table’ with colleagues they might not otherwise engage with, therefore creating a sense of community united by shared well-being issues and solutions. Following the final round of each event, the participants share the products of their discussion, which often results in further discussion, producing additional data. There are several variations in World Café, namely Knowledge Kopitiam (Tan & Brown, 2005), Quality Café (Lagrosen (2019), Community Café (Tan, 2005), research world café (Schiele et al., 2022) or even dialogic cafe. The World café is also regarded as one of the effective techniques of data collection in future studies.

Tan and Brown (2005) emphasised that the World Café works well in Asian diverse culture, reminiscing the informal, honest discussion in a relaxed environment at a social event, which revolves around real issues surrounding themselves as a community. This means that the World Café must be culturally adaptive. In this study, the modified World Café was developed to integrate its method to be culturally adaptive and inclined towards systematic data collection. Considering the socio-cultural aspect of the Southeast Asian participants, the study participants remained at the table in situ without moving to another table during the discussion, which is considered improper table ethos. The café also serves tea/coffee and variations of kuih, the SEA’s dessert.

At the same time, the modification also takes the analysis further by including the affinity diagram for systematic brainstorming to handle difficult issues in ambiguous situations (Lagrosen, 2019). Therefore, it becomes ideal for the affinity diagram to be combined with the World Café as a large number of insightful knowledge are generated, grouped according to certain criteria, and finally linked (Dale, 2003). Another important aspect of the modification is to be conducted as a basis of organisational strategic planning, which therefore involves people working in the same place. However, the modification of this session is done with a participatory method, which groups based on the respective countries by focusing on the agenda setting, engagement with research, and interactional features (MacFarlane et al., 2016).

5 Methodology

This research employs a participatory approach by engaging 19 in-service science teachers from eight Southeast Asian countries, except for Brunei, Singapore, and Timor Leste. Participants were selected using purposive sampling based on their professional experiences. The selection committee reviewed applications and chose participants based on their written merits and English-speaking abilities to minimize language barriers.

The participants, all in-service science teachers, were invited to attend the session in person. With representatives from Cambodia, Indonesia, Lao PDR, Malaysia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Thailand, and Vietnam, the study encompasses a wide geographical area, capturing regional differences and similarities in science education. The diverse age range (21–50 years) and varied teaching experience (6 to over 25 years) include both early-career and veteran teachers, addressing both emerging and longstanding educational trends and challenges. The gender balance (7 males and 12 females) and marital status (7 single and 12 married) provide a well-rounded perspective, considering gender-specific and professional experiences. Additionally, the range of qualifications, from bachelor’s degrees to PhDs, ensures a mix of practical classroom experience and advanced academic knowledge, contributing to a comprehensive understanding of science education in Southeast Asia. Table 1 displays the demographic profiles of the participants.

The data were collected during the World Café and plenary session mainly from the dialogues during the group discussion and plenary session as well as the affinity diagram presented by the participants. The data analysis procedure was adapted from the World Café participatory data analysis and interpretation of findings as suggested by Cashman et al. (2008) and Koen, Pleiss, and Koen (2014). As suggested, an inductive data analysis approach was employed, with the unit of analysis being the answers, ideas, and suggestions provided by the participants. Data from dialogues were transcript and analyzed by categorizing them into themes and subthemes during the intra-country analysis ensuring that the data saturation reflected the group’s collective views to be presented during the plenary session. The inter-country analysis yielded a broad understanding that was garnered during the plenary session. Data from the transcription was then compared with data from the affinity diagram as a part of the triangulation process. Data from the affinity diagram were summarized based on the main topics of the discussion as can be seen in Table 2.

The depth of data from the World Café was limited compared to conventional qualitative approaches. As argued by Löhr et al. (2020), this limitation arises from several factors, pivoted in the approach adapted in this study. For instance, as compared to interview techniques, world café only allows (1) a limited number of questions to be discussed during a single session, (2) there was an inability to find individual vignettes due to the cross-pollination of thoughts, (3) difficulty in identifying differences between subgroups or individuals, and (4) no opportunities to ask clarifying questions. The findings were grouped into broad categories rather than an in-depth exploration of individual ideas. This approach allowed for capturing a wide range of insights, although the depth was constrained by the World Café method’s nature.

6 Procedure

The World Café session was named SEA’s Teacher Café, adapting to the structure proposed by Lagrosen (2019) and MacFarlane et al. (2016) and Tan and Brown (2005). The purpose and parameters were contextualised by referring to the respective countries’ education ecosystems. The participants were grouped according to their respective countries to bring a shared understanding of their context related to an individual national curriculum.

As suggested in the World Café method, the session emphasised the need to create a hospitable, ambience space. The session started with a short presentation of the café host and the context of the session. Adhered to the importance of having a welcoming environment and psychological safety during the session, the teachers were introduced to the table host, setting, and aims. The steps in performing a modified World Café were briefed. Then, the teachers were invited to sit in a relaxed environment around small tables with three participants each. The tables were nicely decorated with tablecloths and flowers. Refreshments were provided in the form of coffee/tea and kuih.

When the session started, the participants were encouraged to engage in intimate conversations at the coffee-style table involving three rounds of conversations to explore questions that matter and magnify their experience by focusing the collective attention that attracts collaborative engagement. Three rounds of conversation at each table were carried out around three important aspects. In the first section, the participants were invited to reflect on the current trends and issues in their country’s education ecosystem, especially those related to curriculum. Then, during the second section, the participants were invited to imagine and explore the ideal future, based on their context. Finally, after the discussion on the actual and desired situations, the participants were requested to bridge both sections.

The session encouraged everyone’s contribution by inviting full participation and mutual contributions to link and connect the fragmented ideas for knowledge sharing to branch and grow. The facilitator encouraged cross-pollination and connection of diverse perspectives of the participants using the living system dynamics. By retaining the common focus on the core questions, the emergence of the idea was induced intentionally by increasing the diversity and density of connections among perspectives. The participants were facilitated by the table host to listen together for patterns, insights, and deeper questions in the homogenous group to bring collective understanding. The very essence of the cafe session is about shared and focused attention in ways that nurture the coherence of thoughts without losing individual contribution. To visually capture the idea, an affinity diagram with sticky notes was therefore used to arrange the conversation key points.

Finally, the intergroup insights were collected and shared through the collective discoveries during the plenary session. The participants’ agreements on the inputs presented in the affinity diagram were cross-checked among the members during the plenary session. The systematic progression from one section to another by the table host aided the collective knowledge as well as visible and actionable insights.

7 Data Collection and Analysis

The participants were given the autonomy to arrange their sticky notes according to the fixed template given. An example of an affinity diagram resulting from the café is demonstrated in Figure 1.

Figure 1

The affinity diagram template.

The card was divided into three sections to aid the discussion. The sticky notes provided the dynamics for the participants to cluster their ideas in the section or link between the sections using arrows. In this case, the sticky notes were structured into three groups that were labelled at the assigned points. The data collected in this study included the handwritten data from the affinity diagram from the World Café session and the scripts collected during the interactive oral di during the plenary session. Nine affinity diagrams were developed in which each diagram consisted of three clusters.

Having that the diagram is already the part of data analysis process (Löhr et al. 2020) that already confirms the intra-cases insights by categorising them into branches or clusters. The difference between the participants’ insights in the group was the inability to be identified; therefore, the data were analysed according to techniques used combining the thematic-content data analysis and document analysis as demonstrated by Koen et al. (2014). Regarding data saturation, as argued by Koen et al. (2014), each affinity diagram has already reached data saturation as it resembled the group consensus data set from a similar country. During the plenary session, however, the inter-country or intercase findings were consolidated.

From the affinity diagram, it was found that conversation traversed a broad range of topics, including situational and locality issues, facilities, administration and bureaucracy, professional development, trust and professional autonomy, adaptation to systemic change, and benchmarking.

The data collected in this study included the handwritten data from the affinity diagram from the World Café session and the scripts collected during the interactive oral di during the plenary session. Nine affinity diagrams were developed in which each diagram consisted of three clusters. The diagram is already the part of data analysis process (Löhr, Weinhardt, & Sieber, 2020) that already confirms the intra-cases insights by categorising them into branches or clusters. The difference between the participants’ insights in the group was the inability to be identified; therefore, the data were analysed according to techniques used combining the thematic-content-data analysis and document analysis as demonstrated by Koen, du Plessis, and Koen (2014). Regarding data saturation, as argued by Koen, du Plessis, and Koen (2014), each affinity diagram has already reached data saturation as it resembled the group consensus data set from a similar country. During the plenary session, however, the inter-country or intercase findings were consolidated.

The affinity diagram served as an important point that scaffolded the intra-countries situations during the cafe session. However, during the plenary session, the teachers from different countries formed a dialogue of agreement and disagreement on certain points in their context. At the same time, the plenary session was meant to acknowledge the similarities and appreciate the differences in inter-group situations; therefore, the discussion of this article mainly refers to the affinity diagram.

8 Findings

From the affinity diagram, it was found that conversation traversed a broad range of topics of concern.

Based on Table 2, the inter-country analysis found the common themes related to teacher training, educational resources, and curriculum development. A significant concern across all participants is the need for updated and continuous professional development to help teachers adapt to the evolving educational ecosystem in their respective countries. However, opinions are divided on the area that requires the training. Participants from Cambodia, Indonesia, and Lao PDR highlighted the importance of building teacher capacity to effectively implement new curricula. This sentiment is illustrated by several vignettes, such as: “There is a new curriculum in our country. As the teacher, the new curriculum need to be with continuous training. I believe the new curriculum is good – but the teacher have to understand how to use it.” (T1C2Q1), while participants from Myanmar and Vietnam focus on the need for training in instructional strategies, “Moreover, teachers need better training in different teaching methods. Currently, many teachers only know traditional ways. Training in new methods can help us teach science more effectively and engage students better.” (T2C3T1) and “…we have some challenges with training. Teachers, we only get training for our specific subject, but we don’t learn how to integrate lessons. For example, in science, we need more interdisciplinary training to connect maths with science in a lesson.” (T1C3W1)

Meanwhile, teachers from Malaysia, the Philippines, and Thailand agreed that integrating new strategies through training can foster educator agency, autonomy, and creativity. However, “…we need to develop trust between parents, teachers, and education officials, just as in old days. We hope to reduce the clerical works and works on better address the needs of our students and make teaching more effective.” (T1C4S1). To foster trust for the teacher’s agency, for instance, one teacher suggested: “I suggest we invite ‘leader’ teachers who are very good at teaching to help train other teachers. For example, in some schools, we have teachers who don’t get much training and struggle with new methods. If we have experienced teachers come and mentor others, it will help a lot” (T2C4P1). Others emphasized the need for professional development workshops (e.g. “We need to focus on teachers. For example, teachers should be very active and take initiative. We need to join workshops and training to improve our teaching skills. Also, it’s important to encourage students to work in groups and communicate well with each other” (T1C2S1)).

A significant common issue is the lack of adequate facilities and resources for effective science teaching and learning. Participants from Cambodia, Indonesia, Lao PDR, Myanmar, and the Philippines emphasised that the limitation for quality science labs, teaching aids, and digital infrastructure impacted the quality of science education. For example, one of the participants reported that: “I don’t have enough internet and computer to teach. We always use mobile phones to look for ideas” (T1C2R1) and another added “I have many problems with teaching materials. My school doesn’t have enough proper facilities like science labs and ICT rooms” (T1C2T1), reflecting struggles with limited digital resources.

While the current challenges were acknowledged, participants envisioned a future science learning that would benefit from digital technologies and well-equipped laboratories. “In the future of science education, we hope to see better use of digital technology in the classroom. For example, we want more tools like interactive whiteboards and digital labs that can help students understand science better” (T1C3W1). The participants also “…imagine schools in the future will have all the resources and labs we need. Right now, many schools, especially in rural areas, struggle with a lack of equipment and facilities. We don’t want any student or teacher to be left behind because of this […].” (T2C3U1). Means that, the participants connected the infrastructure challenges in education with potential societal injustice and imbalances. Therefore, the participants hope that “we should also provide free digital technology and internet access for students. Many students do not have computers or good internet at home. If schools have good technology, it will help students learn better[…] “(T2C3T1) and they also call the “government and schools should invest more in facilities and teaching materials. Right now, we often lack proper science labs and equipment […].” (T2C2S1).

Participants also noted that: “for facilities and support, we really need proper school buildings and better infrastructure. Many schools still lack good facilities like science labs. In some areas, we don’t have enough equipment for experiments, making teaching science very difficult” (T2C4Q1). Others echoed this concern: “Many schools do not have labs at all, so students miss out on hands-on experiments. Increasing safety in schools is important too, like fixing old equipment or ensuring labs are safe for students to use” (T1C4T1). Additionally, one teacher pointed out the need for innovation: “I think teachers need to be more creative to make science teaching better. In my school, we make our own teaching aids because we don’t always have ready-made materials” (T2C4T1). There is a clear aspiration to enhance educational facilities with better-equipped classrooms, science labs, and increased access to digital resources. Addressing these deficiencies requires substantial investment in educational infrastructure and technology.

Curriculum and pedagogy also present widespread challenges. Participants from Cambodia, Malaysia, and the Philippines expressed concerns about curriculum overload and its disconnect from real-life applications. For example, one teacher remarked: “Our curriculum is too packed. There’s too much information that doesn’t fit well with what students need for their future careers…” (T1C2U1). Others suggested improvements: “In the future, we need a better science curriculum. Our textbooks need to be more practical, showing how science is used in everyday life, such as farming or fixing things” (T1C3R1) and another envisioned that “In the future, we want science education in our country to be more connected to everyday life. For example, we could teach students how to use science to solve real problems they see around them, like pollution or waste management. This way, science is not just for jobs, but for making their daily lives better.” (T1C3V1) and “. so, we should use education to help our country grow and improve. Science teaching should include real-life examples, like how to use simple tools to test water quality or grow better crops. This makes science more interesting and useful for students.” (T1C4R1). Overall, the aim is to make science more engaging and relevant, integrating real-life examples and modern educational needs.

Despite these similarities, each country faces unique local challenges. Cambodian participants struggle with multi-grade teaching: “In the lower class, I have to teach different grades and subjects in one class. It is not easy” (T2C2P1). Myanmar teachers deal with linguistic diversity and a shortage of facilities: “We need more teachers and must learn the languages of different ethnic groups. This makes teaching very difficult” (TC2T1). Indonesian teachers face disparities between urban and rural areas, with limited resources and infrastructure in rural settings: “In rural areas, schools lack labs and reliable internet. Sometimes the electricity is limited” (T3C2Q1). The teacher also discussed the significance of the government’s systematic initiatives such as the ‘Last Mile School Program,’ for addressing the educational challenges in remote and underserved regions in the Philippines, as mentioned by T1C2U1 “the Last Mile School could be an example of reducing learning problem in isolated areas”

Systemic support and governance strategies need to be field-based and cultivate trust, “… and we also need better communication between the government and schools. Sometimes, the policies from the government don’t match what we need in schools. Or maybe the idea is somewhat diluted when passed down to the teacher.” (T2C3P1) and “As a teacher, I want my student happy to learn science and enjoy coming to school. If parents, teachers, and the education officials can trust each other, it will be better for everyone. But let the teacher make decision in our classroom professionally. Give teachers more freedom to teach in their own style, and let schools decide what’s best for their students.” (T1C3S1).

9 Discussion

10 Conclusion

This research aimed to identify the current issues and trends in the teaching and learning ecosystem in SEA. From actual and realistic situations identified, the participants were invited to reimagine the desirable teaching and learning ecosystem in the future. Having the actual and desirable situation established, the participants then connected the situations by providing realistic recommendations. In conclusion, having science teachers in different education ecosystems, there is no clear consensus that could be built on the cafe session. However, during the plenary session, there was coherence in participants’ voices on several current issues and trends in the teaching and learning ecosystem in SEA.

Generally, the teachers welcomed any updates in the educational ecosystem. However, for the transition to happen seamlessly, the teachers need to be better supported by systematic and structured pre-service as well as in-service training before any changes happen. The science teachers’ imagination of the desirable teaching and learning ecosystem in the future was very converging and imagining the improvement of the concrete school facilities and laboratories, empowering teacher professionalism and providing a quality education ecosystem, as well as being adaptive towards digital teaching and learning without compromising the effectiveness in the traditional pedagogies. Finally, the participants’ recommendations were related to reducing teachers’ workload, better incentives, more financial allocation for school physical structures, and better dissemination of educational aspirations for public understanding.

There are several important limitations to be addressed in this study. The cafe session was conducted in English; therefore, the participants’ ability to converse in English might have impacted the interpretation of the real issue. At the same time, as other qualitative approaches, this finding has limited generalizability subjected to unique individual and small group perspectives. However, having an affinity diagram to arrange the thought visually and interactive communication through a plenary session allowed the team members to reinterpret certain matters.

The use of the world café method was interesting, but the richness and depth of the data is limited. Therefore, combining the world café with other methods of data collection will provide a much comprehensive understanding of the issue to be discovered. Future research might consider employing grounded theory data analysis methods, such as open coding, axial coding, and thematic coding. This approach could better incorporate the specificities of geopolitical factors, demographic characteristics, and national agendas, enhancing the practical value of the research findings as a reference.