Advertisement

Technology, Knowledge and Learning

, Volume 23, Issue 3, pp 473–494 | Cite as

Education Systems in the Digital Age: The Need for Alignment

  • Deirdre Butler
  • Margaret Leahy
  • Peter Twining
  • Ben Akoh
  • Yousra Chtouki
  • Sara Farshadnia
  • Kanda Moore
  • Roumen Nikolov
  • Carlos Pascual
  • Barbara Sherman
  • Teemu Valtonen
Integrative review
First Online:

Abstract

The focus of Thematic Working Group 1 at EDUsummIT 2017 centred on the need for alignment in education systems and was driven by two key questions relating to (a) if and how all the parts of an education system work together to support the type of learning envisioned in the twenty-first century, and (b) if there is alignment, what is the purpose/vision of that education system and does it meet the needs of its learners. Arising from the discussions held, the group advocated the use of a tool such as the UNESCO framework (ICT competency standards for teachers: competency standards modules, UNESCO, Paris, 2008a; ICT competency standards for teachers: policy framework, UNESCO, Paris, 2011) as a way to conceptualize a systemic approach to reform and to enable policy makers and stakeholders in a system to think about ways in which they can align changes with the goals of any proposed reform. Taking the Irish Education system as an example, this paper illustrates how the UNESCO framework has enabled policy makers in Ireland to adopt a systemic approach to policy formulation which aligns educational strategies across a range of elements “to leverage strengths, coordinate investments, consolidate gains, and advance national development goals and visions” (Kozma in Hum Technol Interdiscip J Hum ICT Environ 1(2):117–156, 2005). To counter the potential danger of a top-down imposition of the UNESCO framework, the group also proposed the Educational Vision and Mission Framework (EVMF) as a tool to support system wide (both top-down and bottom-up) reflection on the purposes of schooling in a rapidly changing world. The group concluded that what is defined as the purpose of education should inform alignment and suggest that application of the UNESCO framework and EVMF could enable the necessary alignment to support the educational, social, and economic transformation necessary for the complex connected global world of today and tomorrow.

Keywords

Alignment Schools Educational vision Purpose of education 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would also like to acknowledge the contributions of Amanda Sherman (Cambodia Foundation for Higher Education) to the TWG1 discussions at EDUsummIT 2017.

References

  1. Becker, H. (2000). The “exemplary teacher” paper—How it arose and how it changed its author’s research program. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 2. Retrieved January 14, 2018, from http://www.citejournal.org/vol1/iss2/seminal/article2.htm.
  2. Binkley, M., Erstad, O., Herman, J., Raizen, S., Ripley, M., Miller-Ricci, M., et al. (2012). Defining twenty-first century skills. In P. Griffin, B. McGaw, & E. Care (Eds.), Assessment and teaching of 21st century skills (pp. 17–66). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bransford, J., Brown, L., & Cocking, R. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, D. C.: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  4. Butler, D., Hallissy, M., & Hurley, J. (2018). The digital learning framework: What digital learning can look like in practice, an irish perspective. In Society for information technology and teacher education international conference (pp. 1339–1346). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).Google Scholar
  5. Butler, D., Leahy, M., Shiel, G., & Cosgrove, J. (2013). Building towards a learning society: A national digital strategy for schools. Dublin: St. Patrick’s College of Education, Education Research Centre.Google Scholar
  6. Conlon, T. (2000). Visions of change: Information technology, education and postmodernism. British Journal of Educational Technology, 31(2), 109–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Conway, P., & Brennan, E. (2009). National policies and practices on ICT in education: Ireland. In T. Plomp, N. Law, & J. Pelgrum (Eds.), Cross-national information and communication technology Policies and practices in education (pp. 383–402). Charlotte: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  8. Cosgrove, J., Butler, D., Leahy, M., Shiel, G., Kavanagh, L., & Creaven, A. (2014). The 2013 ICT census in school report. Dublin: Educational Research Centre.Google Scholar
  9. Cosgrove, J., & Marshall, K. (2008). ICT access and usage in Irish primary schools: Identifying the gaps. Dublin: Liffey Press.Google Scholar
  10. Counts, G. S. (1978). Dare the schools build a new social order?. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Darling-Hammond, L., & Bransford, J. (Eds.). (2007). Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do. Hoboken: Wiley.Google Scholar
  12. DES. (1997). Schools IT2000. Dublin: DES. Retrieved January 14, 2018, from https://www.education.ie/en/Publications/Policy-Reports/Schools-IT2000.pdf.
  13. DES. (2001). Ireland blueprint for the future of ICT in education. Dublin: DES. Retrieved January 14, 2018, from http://www.ncte.ie/cao/documents/d247.PDF.
  14. DES. (2008). ICT in schools. Inspectorate evaluation studies. Dublin: DES. Retrieved January 14, 2018, from http://www.education.ie/en/Publications/Inspection-Reports-Publications/Evaluation-Reports-Guidelines/ICT-in-Schools-Inspectorate-Evaluation-Studies.pdf.
  15. DES. (2012). A framework for junior cycle. Dublin: Author. Retrieved January 14, 2018, from http://www.education.ie/en/Publications/Policy-Reports/A-Framework-for-Junior-Cycle-Full-Report.pdf,
  16. DES (Department of Education and Skills). (2011). Literacy and numeracy for learning and life. The national strategy to improve literacy and numeracy among children and young people. 2011–2020. Dublin: DES. Retrieved January 14, 2018, from https://www.education.ie/en/Publications/Policy-Reports/lit_num_strategy_full.pdf.
  17. DES Inspectorate. (2012a). An introduction to school self-evaluation of teaching and learning in primary schools. Inspectorate guidelines for schools. Dublin: DES. Retrieved January 18, 2018, from http://schoolself-evaluation.ie/primary/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/An-Introduction-to-School-Self-Evaluation-of-Teaching-and-Learning-in-Primary-Schools.pdf.
  18. DES Inspectorate. (2012b). School self-evaluation. Guidelines for post-primary schools. Inspectorate guidelines for schools. Dublin: DES. Retrieved January 14, 2018, from http://www.education.ie/en/Publications/Inspection-Reports-Publications/Evaluation-Reports-Guidelines/sse_guidelines_post_primary.pdf.
  19. DES. (2015). The digital strategy for schools, 2015–2020. Dublin; DES. Retrieved January 14, 2018, from https://www.education.ie/en/Publications/Policy-Reports/Digital-Strategy-for-Schools-2015-2020.pdf.
  20. DES. (2016a). Looking at our schools: A quality framework for primary schools. Dublin: DES. Retrieved January 14, 2018, from http://www.education.ie/en/Publications/Inspection-Reports-Publications/Evaluation-Reports-Guidelines/Looking-at-Our-School-2016-A-Quality-Framework-for-Primary-Schools.pdf.
  21. DES. (2016b) Looking at our schools : A quality framework for post-primary schools. Dublin: DES. Retrieved January 14, 2018, from http://www.education.ie/en/Publications/Inspection-Reports-Publications/Evaluation-Reports-Guidelines/Looking-at-Our-School-2016-A-Quality-Framework-for-Post-Primary-schools.pdf.
  22. DES. (2017a). The digital learning framework for primary schools. Dublin: DES. Retrieved January 14, 2018, from http://www.pdsttechnologyineducation.ie/en/Planning/Digital-Learning-Framework/Digital-Learning-Framework-Primary.pdf.
  23. DES. (2017b). Digital learning framework for post-primary schools. Dublin: DES. Retrieved January 14, 2018, from http://www.pdsttechnologyineducation.ie/en/Planning/Digital-Learning-Framework/Digital-Learning-Framework-Post-Primary.pdf.
  24. Dewey, J. (1934). Individual psychology and education. The Philosopher 12, Retrieved January 14, 2018, from http://www.the-philosopher.co.uk/2016/08/individual-psychology-and-education-1934.html.
  25. Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
  26. Drèze, J., & Sen, A. (2002) India: Development and participation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ertmer, P. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in our quest for technology integration? Educational Technology Research and Development (ETR&D), 53(4), 25–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. ETA (European Training Agency). (2010). Key competences. Retrieved January 14, 2018, from http://www.etf.europa.eu/web.nsf/pages/Key_competences_EN?OpenDocument.
  29. European Schoolnet and University of Liège. (2013). Survey of schools: ICT in education. Benchmarking access, use and attitudes to technology in Europe’s schools. Final Report (ESSIE). Brussels: European Union. Retrieved January 14, 2018, from http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/sites/digital-agenda/files/KK-31-13-401-EN-N.pdf.
  30. Eurydice. (2011). Key data on learning and innovation through ICT at school in Europe. Retrieved January 14, 2018, from http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/education/eurydice/documents/key_data_series/129en.pdf.
  31. Ford, M. (2009). The lights in the tunnel: automation, accelerating technology and the economy of the future. Wayne (Pennsylvania): Acculant Publishing.Google Scholar
  32. Fullan, M. (2006). Change theory: A force for school improvement (Centre for Strategic Education Seminar Series Paper No. 157). Retrieved August 8, 2018, from http://www.michaelfullan.ca/Articles_06/06_change_theory.pdf.
  33. Fullan, M. (2013). Stratosphere: Integrating technology, pedagogy, and change knowledge. New York: Pearson.Google Scholar
  34. Hallissy, M., & Hurley, J. (2016). Adapting the UNESCO ICT competency framework for teachers, for Ireland—a literature review. Dublin: H2 Learning.Google Scholar
  35. Hill, R. B. (2010). Excellence: The importance of vision and work ethic. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 70(2), 28–31.Google Scholar
  36. Jones, K. (2012). What is the purpose of education? Retrived August 15, 2012, from https://www.forbes.com/sites/sap/2012/08/15/what-is-the-purpose-of-education/#25ea55037795.
  37. Kozma, R. (Ed.). (2003). Technology, innovation, and educational change: A global perspective. Eugene, OR: International Society for Educational Technology.Google Scholar
  38. Kozma, R. (2011). Transforming education: The power of ICT policies. Paris: UNESCO.Google Scholar
  39. Kozma, R. B. (2005). National policies that connect ICT-based education reform to economic and social development. Human Technology: An interdisciplinary journal on humans in ICT environments, 1(2), 117–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kozma, R. B. (2008). Comparative analyses of policies for ICT in education. In International handbook of information technology in primary and secondary education (pp. 1083–1096). Boston, MA: Springer.Google Scholar
  41. Labaree, D. F. (1997). Public goods, private goods: The American struggle over educational goals. American Educational Research Journal, 34(1), 39–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Law, N. (2008). Teacher learning beyond knowledge for pedagogical innovations with ICT. In J. Voogt & G. Knezek (Eds.), International handbook of information technology in primary and secondary education. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  43. Law, N. (2013). Forward. In T. Lee Yong, & L. Cher Ping (Eds.), Creating holistic technology-enhanced learning experiences: Tales from a future school in Singapore (pp. xv–xvii). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  44. Law, N., Pelgrum, J., & Plomp, T. (2008). Pedagogy and ICT use in schools around the world: Findings from the IEA SITES 2006 study. Hong Kong: The Comparative Education Research Centre.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Li, Q., & Ma, X. (2010). A meta-analysis of the effects of computer technology on school students’ mathematics learning. Educational Psychology Review, 22, 215–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Martin, J., McCormack, B., Fitzsimons, D., & Spirig, R. (2014). The importance of inspiring a shared vision. International Pratice Development Journal, 4(2), 1–15.Google Scholar
  47. Moonen, J. (2008). Policy from a global perspective. In International handbook of information technology in primary and secondary education (pp. 1083–1096). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  48. National College of School Leadership (NCSL). (2003). NPQH Access Stage Unit 1.2: Vision into action. Nottingham: NCSL.Google Scholar
  49. National College of School Leadership (NCSL). (2004). NPQH Development Stage Unit 1.1: Developing a strategic eduational vision. Nottingham: NCSL.Google Scholar
  50. NCCA. (2009). Senior cycle key skills framework. Dublin: NCCA. Retrieved January 14, 2018, from http://www.ncca.ie/en/Curriculum_and_Assessment/Post-Primary_Education/Senior_Cycle/Key_Skills_Framework/KS_Framework.pdf.
  51. NCCA (National Council for Curriculum and Assessment). (2008). Developing post-primary mathematics education. Project Maths: An overview. Dublin: NCCA. Retrieved January 14, 2018, from http://www.ncca.ie/uploadedfiles/publications/vacancies/project%20maths%20overview.pdf.
  52. OECD. (2015). Students, computers and learning: Making the connection. OECD Publishing, Paris..  https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264239555-en.Google Scholar
  53. OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development). (2005). The definition and selection of key competencies. Paris: OECD. Retrieved January 14, 2018, from http://www.oecd.org/document/17/0,3343,en_2649_39263238_2669073_1_1_1_1,00.html.
  54. Owston, R. (2003). School context, sustainability, and transferability of innovation. In R. Kozma (Ed.), Technology, innovation, and educational change: A global perspective. Eugene, OR: International Society for Educational Technology.Google Scholar
  55. Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. New York: Basic Books Inc.Google Scholar
  56. Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2008). 21st century skills, education and competitiveness: A resource and policy guide. Washington, DC: Partnership for 21st Skills. Retrieved January 14, 2018, from http://www.p21.org/storage/documents/21st_century_skills_education_and_competitiveness_guide.pdf.
  57. Plomp, T., Law, N., & Pelgrum, J. (Eds.). (2009). Cross-national information and communication technology. Policies and practices in education. Charlotte: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  58. Robeyns, I. (2006). Three models of education: Rights, capabilities and human capital. School Field, 4(1), 69–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Russell, C. (2016). System supports for 21st century competencies. Asia Society, Centre for Global Studies. Retrieved January 14, 2018, from https://asiasociety.org/files/system-supports-for-21st-century-competencies-2016_0.pdf.
  60. Sandholtz, J. H., Ringstaff, C., & Dwyer, D. C. (1997). Teaching with technology: Creating student-centered classrooms. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  61. Shear, L., Gallagher, L., & Patel, D. (2011). ITL Research 2011 findings: Evolving educational ecosystems. Redmond, WA: Microsoft.Google Scholar
  62. Shear, L., Gorges, T., Means, B., Singleton, C., Novais, G., Gallagher, L., & Lundh, P. (2010). The Microsoft innovative schools program year 2 evaluation report. Redmond, WA: Microsoft. Retrieved November 26, from http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=9791.
  63. Shear, L., Means, B., Gallagher, L., House, A., & Langworthy, M. (2009). ITL research design. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.Google Scholar
  64. Talbot, K. (1994). Visions for the future. Coventry: NCET.Google Scholar
  65. Teaching Council. (2011). Policy on the continuum of teacher education. Retrieved January 14, 2018, from http://www.teachingcouncil.ie/_fileupload/Teacher%20Education/FINAL%20TC_Policy_Paper_SP(1).pdf.
  66. Twining, P. (2014). Redefining Education: 1: 1 computing strategies in English schools. Change, 2(6), 21.Google Scholar
  67. Twining, et al. (2017). NP3—New purposes, new practices, new pedagogy: Meta-analysis report. London: Society for Educational Studies. Retrieved January 14 2018 at: http://edfutures.net/images/e/e7/NP3_Meta-analysis_report.pdf.
  68. Twining, P. (2017) The Yin-Yang vision. Accessed January 11, 2018, from http://edfutures.net/Yin-Yang_vision.
  69. Twining, P., Raffaghelli, J., Albion, P., & Knezek, D. (2013) Moving education into the digital age: the contribution of teachers’ professional development. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29, 426–437.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12031. Retrieved January 14, 2018, from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jcal.12031/full.
  70. UNESCO. (2008a). ICT competency standards for teachers: Competency standards modules. Paris: UNESCO. Retrieved January 18, 2018, from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0015/001562/156207e.pdf.
  71. UNESCO. (2008b). ICT competency standards for teachers: Policy framework. Paris: UNESCO. Retrieved January 18, 2018, from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0015/001562/156210E.pdf.
  72. UNESCO. (2011). ICT competency standards for teachers: Policy framework. Paris: UNESCO. Retrieved January 18, 2018, from https://iite.unesco.org/pics/publications/en/files/3214694.pdf.
  73. United Nations. (2015). Transforming our world: the 2030 agenda for sustainable development. New York: United Nations.Google Scholar
  74. Watson, G. (2001). Models of information technology teacher professional development that engage with teachers’ hearts and minds. Journal of Information Technology for Teacher Education, 10, 179–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Wong, B. W., & Blandford, A. E. (2002). Analysing ambulance dispatcher decision making: Trialing emergent themes analysis. In Proceedings of the HF2002 human factors conference: Design for the whole person: integrating physical, cognitive and social aspects. Ergonomics Society of Australia. Retrieved August 8, 2018, from http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/16628/1/16628.pdf.
  76. Zagami, J., Bocconi, S., Starkey, L., Wilson, J. D., Gibson, D., Downie, J., et al. (2018). Creating future ready information technology policy for national education systems. Technology, Knowledge and Learning.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-018-9387-7.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Deirdre Butler
    • 1
  • Margaret Leahy
    • 1
  • Peter Twining
    • 2
  • Ben Akoh
    • 3
  • Yousra Chtouki
    • 4
  • Sara Farshadnia
    • 5
  • Kanda Moore
    • 6
  • Roumen Nikolov
    • 7
  • Carlos Pascual
    • 8
  • Barbara Sherman
    • 9
  • Teemu Valtonen
    • 10
  1. 1.Dublin City UniversityDublinIreland
  2. 2.The Open UniversityMilton KeynesUK
  3. 3.Ulink InsightsWinnipegCanada
  4. 4.Al Akhawayn UniversityIfraneMorocco
  5. 5.University of CanterburyChristchurchNew Zealand
  6. 6.Kasetsart UniversityBangkokThailand
  7. 7.ULSITSofiaBulgaria
  8. 8.Addis Ababa Science and Technology UniversityAddis AbabaEthiopia
  9. 9.Cambodia Foundation for Higher EducationPhnom PenhCambodia
  10. 10.University of Eastern FinlandJoensuuFinland

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options