edusummit 2017 summary reports - unesco interfaculty chair ict...

EDUsummIT2017SummaryReports

EDUsummIT2017SummaryReports Page|2

RETHINKINGLEARNINGINADIGITALAGE

EDUsummIT2017SummaryReportsEditedby

Kwok-WingLai,UniversityofOtago,NewZealandJokeVoogt,UniversiteitvanAmsterdam,TheNetherlandsGeraldKnezek,UniversityofNorthTexas,USANovember2017ISBN978-0-473-42542-5


Acknowledgements

EDUsummIT2017isthankfultothesupportofthefollowingorganisations:


TableofContents

EDUsummIT2017:Continuingtheknowledgebuildingjourney 5

ACalltoAction

16

Reports

ThematicWorkingGroup1:Educationsystemsinthedigitalage:Theneed

foralignment18

ThematicWorkingGroup2:Informallearningwithtechnology

27

ThematicWorkingGroup3:Professionaldevelopmentfortechnology-

enhancedlearningleaders

33

ThematicWorkingGroup4:Digitalagencytoempowerequityineducation

39

ThematicWorkingGroup5:Formativeassessmentsupportedbytechnology

46

ThematicWorkingGroup6:Developingcreativityinteachersandlearners

54

ThematicWorkingGroup7:Learningfromnationalpolicyexperiences

59

ThematicWorkingGroup8:Upbringinginadigitalworld:Opportunities

andpossibilities

64

ThematicWorkingGroup9:Supportingsustainabilityandscalabilityin

educationaltechnologyinitiatives:Researchinformedpractice

71

Appendix

1. EDUsummIT2017Committees

77

2. EDUsummIT2017Participants

78

3. EDUsummIT2017Programme 82


EDUsummIT2017:Continuingtheknowledgebuilding

journey

JokeVoogt,UniversiteitvanAmsterdam,TheNetherlandsGeraldKnezek,UniversityofNorthTexas,USA

Kwok-WingLai,UniversityofOtago,NewZealand

AboutEDUsummITThisebookisacollectionofoutcomereportsbythethematicworkinggroups(TWGs)ofEDUsummIT2017. EDUsummIT (International Summiton ICT in Education) is a globalknowledge building community of researchers, educational practitioners, and policymakerscommittedtosupportingtheeffectiveintegrationofresearchandpracticeinthefield of ICT in education. EDUsummIT was founded in 2009 to extend and furtherdevelop the work undertaken by the authors of the International Handbook ofInformationTechnology inPrimaryandSecondaryEducation,editedbyJokeVoogtandGeraldKnezek(2008).Sinceitsinception,EDUsummIThasbeenheldfivetimes,firstlyintheHague(2009),thenParis(2011),WashingtonD.C.(2013),Bangkok(2015)andmostrecently inBorovets (2017).Between70and140participants fromsixcontinentshaveattended each of the EDUsummIT meetings. While EDUsummIT participants meetbiennially, thematic groups focusingonpertinent research topics in ICTandeducationareformedpriortotheSummittopreparediscussionpapers.Thesepapersarefurtherdevelopedduring EDUsummIT.After each EDUsummIT, TWG findings are published ininternationaljournalsandpresentedatmajorconferences.Previous EDUsummITs have been organised in association with international andnational organisations actively supporting the use of information technology ineducation. These organisations include the Society for Information Technology andTeacher Education (SITE), the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE),Kennisnet (The Netherlands), the International Federation for Information Processing(IFIP) Working Group 3.3 (Research into Educational Applications of InformationTechnologies), the Association of Teacher Educators (ATE), the Teacher DevelopmentandHigherEducationDivisionatUNESCOandUNESCOBangkok.

EDUsummIT2017EDUsummIT2017tookplacefrom18-20September2017inBorovets,BulgariaandwashostedbytheUniversityofLibraryStudiesandInformationTechnologies,Sofia,BulgariaandtheNationalInstituteforCurriculumDevelopmentofTheNetherlands.Closeto90researchers, policymakers, and educational practitioners attended EDUsummIT 2017.These participants came from 31 countries. EDUsummIT 2017 was held under thepatronage of UNESCO, Mariya Gabriel, European Union Commissioner for the DigitalEconomy and Society, and Eva Maydel, member of the European Parliament, of theCommitteeontheInternalMarketandConsumerProtection(IMCO).


ThethemeoftheEDUsummIT2017wasRethinkingLearninginaDigitalAge.Thisthemewas inspiredbythecelebrationofthe internationalprojectChildren inthe InformationAgeinitiatedin1985inBulgaria.NineTWGswereformedinthebeginningof2017(referAppendix2formembershipoftheTWGs).Thesegroupsincluded:TWG1:Educationsystemsinthedigitalage:TheneedforalignmentTWG2:InformallearningwithtechnologyTWG3:Professionaldevelopmentfortechnology-enhancedlearningleadersTWG4:DigitalagencytoempowerequityineducationTWG5:FormativeassessmentsupportedbytechnologyTWG6:DevelopingcreativityinteachersandlearnersTWG7:LearningfromnationalpolicyexperiencesTWG8:Upbringinginadigitalworld:OpportunitiesandpossibilitiesTWG9: Supporting sustainability and scalability in educational technology initiatives:ResearchinformedpracticeFocusingontheirrespectivethemes,theTWGsstartedresearchinganddevelopingtheirdiscussionandpolicypapersfromMarch2017.TheTWGswereguidedbythefollowingquestions:

• Whyisthisthemeimportanttoeducationandlearning?• Whatarethekeyissuesandquestionstobeaddressed?• Whataretheresearch,policy,andpracticechallengesfacedandwhatareyour

recommendationstohelpresearchers,practitioners,andpolicymakerstomoveforward?

TheTWGswerealsoaskedto:

• Conductasynthesisofrelevantresearchrelatedtothetheme’stopic.• Provideexamplesofinnovativepractices.

TWGs used a variety of technologies (e.g., Google Docs and Communities) to supportpre-Borovets discussions. Drafts of the discussion papers were prepared before theSummit.TWGleadersalsopreparedquestionsfordiscussions,withsupportingmaterials(research articles, reports, website links, etc.). During the two and half day meeting,EDUsummIT participants engaged in intense discussions of key issues and challengesrelatedtoTWGthemes,anddevelopedrecommendationsandactionplans.Therewerefivegroupsessions,witheachsessionlastingoneandahalfhours.Anadditionalsessionwas also held to provide “cross-fertilisation” among TWGs,with TWG leaders visitingother groups to share their findings and elicit feedback. A poster session was heldfollowedbyawholegroupdiscussion.


AcalltoactionEDUsummIT 2017 resulted in a Call to Action that was agreed upon by EDUsummITparticipants.TheCalltoActionandfindingsoftheTWGswerepresentedattheUNESCOInternationalWorkshopChildrenintheDigitalEraheldinSofia,Bulgaria,September20-21,2017asthefirstactionofEDUsummIT2017todisseminateknowledgetothewiderinternationalcommunity.TWGsummaryreportsAttheconclusionofEDUsummIT2017,eachTWGhassummarisedthebackgroundandcontext of its theme of study, the issues and challenges, recommendations theyproposed to researchers, policy makers and educational practitioners, and the actionplantomoveforward.ThesereportsarepublishedinthiseBook.LookingaheadResearch papers developed by the TWGs will also be published as a special issue inTechnology,KnowledgeandLearning(editedbyJokeVoogtandGeraldKnezek).ThenextEDUsummITwillbeheldinQuebecCity,Canada,inSeptember2019.Itwillbeco-chairedby Thérèse Laferrière,Université Laval,Quebec, Canada andMargaretCox,King’sCollegeLondon,UK.Theplanningprocesswillbeginin2018.ThephotoalbumA selection of photos is included in the following section to document the activitiesundertakenduringEDUsummIT2017.


ThePhotoAlbum

EDUsummIT2017participantsinBorovets,Bulgaria

IcebreakerexcursiontomountainsummitforEDUsummITkick-off


Reception

Openingceremony


ThematicWorkingGroupsinaction

TWG1.Educationsystemsinthedigitalage:Theneedforalignment

TWG3.Professionaldevelopmentfortechnology-enhancedlearningleaders

TWG2.Informallearningwithtechnology


TWG4.Digitalagencytoempowerequityineducation

TWG6.Developingcreativityinteachersandlearners

TWG5.Formativeassessmentsupportedbytechnology


TWG7.Learningfromnationpolicyexperiences

TWG8.Upbringinginadigitalworld:Opportunitiesandpossibilities


TWG9.Supportingsustainabilityandscalabilityineducationaltechnologyinitiatives:Researchinformedpractice

PostersforsharingwithEDUsummITwholegroup


Officialplenarysessions


Typicalinformalgathering:Nineparticipantsfromsevennations

FormalgreetingininformalsettingsReferenceVoogt,J.,&Knezek,G.(Eds.).(2008).Internationalhandbookofinformationtechnologyinprimaryandsecondaryeducation.NewYork:Springer.


EDUsummIT2017

InternationalSummitonICTinEducation

Borovets,Bulgaria

September18-20,2017

Thelearninglandscapeisundergoingfundamentalchanges,requiringnewmethodsandperspectivestocapturethenewcapabilitiesandlearningprocessesthathaveemergedbecause of the basic technology infrastructure and tools generally available and theaugmentedcapabilitiesthatlearnershavethroughtheuseofsuchtools.Approximately 90 leading researchers, policy makers and practitioners spanning allcontinents, gathered in Borovets, Bulgaria, September 18-20, 2017 to define actionitems.

ACALLTOACTION

STUDENTSANDLEARNINGWITHICT

• Torecognize thatdigitalagency,asan individual'sability tocontrolandadapt toadigitalworld,isacriticalgoalforsocial,civicandeconomicwell-being.

• To recognize that citizens including youngpeople are able to engage as producersrather than consumers in order to shape the interaction between technology andsociety.

• Tocreateawarenessoffamily,communityandpeerchallengesforpromotingdigitalcitizenshipandnewopportunitiesandrisksofupbringinginadigitalworld.

• To rethink inter-generational and intercultural dynamics of family and educationalinstituteslinkedtoupbringing,inacontinuousmanner.

• Torecognizecreativityasanimportantcomponentofstudentdevelopment.• Toembed creativity throughout the curriculum inbothwhatwe teachandassess,

andinteacherprofessionalstandards.• To develop a rich array of cases/examples that help exemplify and visualize what

creativitylookslikeacrossteachingandlearningcontexts.• To promote informal learning in education through empowering students, policy

makers should facilitate connections between informal and formal learning andenableteacherstorecognizeandintegrateinformallearningintheirpedagogy.

PROFESSIONALDEVELOPMENTFORINTEGRATINGTECHNOLOGY

• To encourage professional development that includes the recognition that leadersfacilitating technology-enhanced learning are important change agents in theimplementationofpolicies.


• Toencouragepolicymakerstocreateopportunitiesfordevelopingteachercapacityto identify, foster development of, and formatively assess 21st century skills (e.g.,creativity, problem solving, self regulation, critical thinking, collaboration,communication,digitalliteracy).

• Toestablishglobaland localnetworksofprofessionaldevelopmentof leaderswhofacilitatetechnology-enhancedlearning.

EDUCATIONALSYSTEMPOLICIESFORINFUSINGTECHNOLOGIES• To develop an actionable vision that has buy-in from all stakeholders to ensure

alignmentwithinthesystem.• To use frameworks such as the UNESCO Framework (2011) as a tool to guide

alignmentandimplementationwithinthesystem.• To develop productive partnerships among all stakeholders to advance capacity

building for ICT use in schools through the co-design of research with realcommitmentandownershipfromallstakeholdersatappropriatelevels.

• Tocommunicateandconnectwithpolicymakersandeducatorstogroundpoliciesinevidenceinformedknowledgetoprotectpolicyandpracticefromthelatestfadsofeducationaltechnology.

• Tobeawareoftheaffordancesandchallengeswhenstakeholdersusedatatomakedecisionsforformativeassessment.

• Tocreateopportunitiesforcollaborativeworkwithstakeholdersinordertoexaminethe complex connections between data collection, data interpretation andmeaningfuldatausetosupportteachersandlearners.

• Touse real timedata systems tomonitor and evaluate educational processes andoutcomesthroughabalanceofvaluedindicatorsindynamicsystemsmodels.

AND

• Todevelopfuturereadypolicyvisionsalignedwithglobaldevelopmentgoals.


ThematicWorkingGroup1

Educationsystemsinthedigitalage:Theneedforalignment

SummaryReport

MargaretLeahy&DeirdreButler,DublinCityUniversity,IrelandPeterTwinning,TheOpenUniversity,UK

YousraChtouki,AlAkhawaynUniversity,MoroccoKandaMoore,KasetsartUniversity,Thailand

RoumenNikolov,ULSIT,BulgariaAmandaSherman,CambodiaFoundationforHigherEducationBarbaraSherman,CambodiaFoundationforHigherEducation

TeemuValtonen,UniversityofEasternFinland,Finland

With

BenAkoh,UlinkInsights,CanadaCarlosMinianoPascual,AddisAbabaScienceandTechnologyUniversity,Ethiopia

SaraFarshadnia,UniversityofCanterbury,NewZealand

Background

Aroundtheglobeeducationsystemsareacknowledgingtheneedtochangetomeetthechallengesof a rapidly evolving complexdigital society. Theneed tohavea long-termvision for education that ensures that all students experience success and have theknowledge,skills,abilitiesandcompetencies to liveandthrive in the21stcenturywasnevermoreimportant.ICThasakeyroletoplay intransformingeducationsystemstomeettheneedsof the21stcentury,notonlybecauseitchangesmanyaspectsofsocietywhichimpactdirectlyon thepurposesofeducation,butalsobecause itprovidesuswithadditionalwaysofsupportinglearners.However,itmustberealisedthatICTisonlyonepartofacomplexjigsaw and the use of ICT to support the type of learning fit for purposes in the 21stcenturyischallenging.IfchangeistooccurandICTsuccessfullyusedtosupportlearning,thereisaneedtoconsidertheimplicationsforallaspectsoftheeducationsystem.Thisincludes policy goals and visions of education along with pedagogy, teacher practice,professional learning, curriculum, assessment, as well as school organisation andadministration, all of which work together and reinforce each other as part of aninterrelatedandinterdependentlearningecosystem.


LessonsfromthepastdemonstratethattheintroductionofICTintoschoolsdoesnotinand of itself lead to the development of innovative teaching practices or thetransformationofeducation(Butleretal.,2013).Ifeducationsystemsaretosupportthetypeoflearningrequiredforthe21stcentury,a‘tinkeringattheedges’approachisnotsufficientifwearetomovetowardsarealtransformationofeducation.Instead,whatisdemandedisanunderstandingofhoweducationalchangecanbeempoweredbydigitaltechnologies.Consequently,thereisaneedtomovebeyondasolefocuson‘ICTbasedinnovations’andreconsiderthedesignoftheentireschoolsystemsoastomaximisetheimpact educational change will have. This implies the adoption of a more systemic,holisticapproachtoensurethealignmentofthekeycomponentsofthesystem.The importance of having alignment between education visions, policy and practice iswellestablished (e.g.,Butleretal.,2013;Fullan,2013;Twiningetal.,2013).However,what is less clear is what the purposes of education systems should be in a rapidlychangingworld,andthuswhateducationalvisions,policiesandpracticesmightbemostappropriate.MindfulofDewey’s (1934)advice that“anyeducation is, in its formsandmethods,anoutgrowthoftheneedsofthesocietyinwhichitexists”,questionsofhowbest to shapeapurposeor vision for education in the21st century are critical to anyconversation around the need for alignment. Key to all such conversations is theunderstanding thatwhat isdefinedas thepurposeof educationwill informalignmentand determine if all students experience a quality education (UN SustainableDevelopment Goal No. 4, http://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/education/)wherebytheyacquiretheknowledge,skills,abilitiesandcompetenciestobesuccessfulinthecomplexdigitalworldofthe21stcentury.Against this backdrop, this report presents the main outcomes of discussions atEDUsummIT 2017 by ThematicWorkingGroup (TWG) 1 on the need for alignment ineducationalsystemsintheDigitalAge. Itbeginsbyoutliningtheoverarchingprinciplesof the work and is followed by the key challenges identified, resolutions to thesechallengesandrecommendations.ThereportconcludesbylistingtheactionstobetakenbyTWG1tofurtherdevelopthediscussionsgoingforward.NinemembersofTWG1representingsevendifferentnationalitiesattendedEDUsummIT2017(seeFigure1).


Figure1.TWG1comprised9membersrepresenting7differentnationalities.

OverarchingPrinciplesTheworkofTWG1wasgroundedinthefollowingoverarchingprinciples:

• Alignmentmatters(Butleretal.,2013;Twiningetal.,2013),anditshouldincludealignment of Purposes (Vision), Policy (in particular policy in relation tocurriculum,assessmentandaccountability),andPractice(SeeFigure2).

• Indetermininghowto‘fittheeducationsystem’withtheneedsofadigitalagesociety,itis

o Notenoughtobuyintotheconceptoftheneedtochange;rather,itimplies both the need for a vision for education, which is fit forpurpose,thatisacceptedbyallstakeholdersinthesystemandaneedforaction.

o Notabout focussingon ICTalonebut ratheron theways toharnessICTforensuringinclusiveandqualityeducationforall.

Figure2.Thekeyelementsofalignmentineducation.


KeyChallenges

Based on the analysis of case studies completed by members of TWG1 prior toEDUsummIT2017andthegroupdiscussionsatEDUsummIT,TWG1identifiedanumberof challenges that were seen to impede alignment in education systems. The currentchallenge inmostcountries isa lackofalignmentacrosspolicy,pedagogyandpracticeOR alignment to a vision that is ‘not fit for purpose’ in the digital age. Lack ofinvolvement of all stakeholders in the process of developing policy, pedagogy andpractices is also a common issue in most of educational systems(http://unesco.unibit.bg/en/TWG1). TWG1 discussions served to elaborate thesechallengesasfollows:

Challenge1:Alignmentiscomplex

Theconceptofalignmentwithinaneducationsystemiscomplex,dynamicandevolving.For example, applying a sociocultural framework (Figure 3) to the idea of alignmentshows that it is muchmore complex than Figure 2 suggests. Each component of thesystem is just one aspect of an interrelated and interdependent ecosystem whichembracesnational,schoolandteacherlevels.

Figure3.Asocioculturalanalysisofeducationalalignment(adaptedfromTwiningetal.,2017,p.27).

Challenge2:Alignmentneedstoaddressthesystemasawhole

TWG1usedtheUNESCOframework(2008a,2008b,2011)(Figure4)asatooltofurtherhighlightthecomplexityofeducationsystemsandtheneedforalignment.Specifically,itclearly illustrates each component of the systemas just one aspect of an interrelatedand interdependent ecosystem. For example, while it is important to considerinfrastructural issues, it is equally important to take into account how digitaltechnologies are to be used in curriculum and assessment. However, while digitaltechnologies canmake thingspossible it ispeople thatmake thingshappen; teachers’pedagogical orientations are pivotal in how the digital technologies are used. How toconceptualise, design and sustain teacher professional learning is therefore a criticalcomponent of the system. Despite this, the tendency has been to focus on specificaspects of education, such as the use of ICT in learning and teaching, rather thanconsideringthesystemasawhole.The lackof impactofworkon implementing ICT in


educationdespiteextensiveresearch, investment in infrastructureandequipment,andinteacherprofessionallearning,evidencesthatthisnarrowfocusisineffective.

Figure4.TheUNESCOFramework(2011).

Challenge3:Alignmentneedstoco-existwithavisionthatisappropriateforthedigital

age

As noted above, alignment needs to bewith an appropriate goal (Figure 5). Thus, forexample,itcouldbearguedthatavisionthatfocusesontherecalloffactsisnotfitforpurposeinaworldinwhichinformationisreadilyavailableandthechallengesareaboutits application to solve (complex) problems. This needs to be actionable and sharedacrossstakeholders.

Figure5.Alignmentwithanappropriategoal.


These three challenges were further explicated by the group as a set of interrelatedquestionsfocusingbothonthedevelopmentofavisionforeducationandtheneedforalignmentineducationsystems.Theywere:

● How to ensure that any stated vision for education is both locally and globallyappropriate?

o How to adopt a global common framework, e.g., the UNESCO 2011Framework and align it accordingly to the local vision, pedagogy andpractices?

o Howtomovebeyondthebelief in ‘bestpractices’, i.e., ‘bestpractice’vscontext? The tendency to copy is not always appropriate betweensystems.

o Howtobuildtrustinlocalexpertise?

● Howtoinvolveallstakeholdersintheprocessofdevelopingthevisionfromtheoutset? Stakeholders include students, parents, teachers, their organisations,policymakers,industryandcitizens.

o Howtoincludethevoice(i.e.,aspirations,needs,valuesandinterests)of

theteachers,studentsandparents?o How to utilise educators’ experience and knowledge in developing the

vision?o Howtoensureappropriatesupportsareputinplacetoadoptvision?o How to stimulate a “prosumer culture” (Toffler, 1980) among the

students,teachersandwidercommunity?o How to organise Living Labs (ICT based learning environments with

involvementofallstakeholders)forexplorationofinnovativeeducationalsystems which demonstrate proper alignment across vision, pedagogyandpractices?

o How to utilise Learner ExperienceDesign (LXE) and learning analytics inordertoensurerefinementoftheeducationalsystems?

● How to challenge traditional values/resistance to changeacross andwithin thesystem?

o Policymakerso Societyatlargeo Learners(includingteachers)o Parentso Researchers

● Howtogetalignmentwithinandacrossall levelsofsystemi.e.,atthenational,

district, school and grade levels, including their ICT based infrastructures andlearningenvironments,whichentails:


● Understandingthecomplexityofalignmento How to get policymakers to understand the complexity of

alignment,andtheirneedforagilityandadaptability?o How to ensure policymakers rely on the voice of their local

teachers, constituents and researchers to avoid the ‘flip/flop’nature of policy makers, i.e., when decisions are driven bypoliticalexperienceandthirdpartyinfluenceratherthanbasedonvalidatedsolidresearchevidenceanddata?

● Understanding that alignment is dynamic and evolving at multiple

levels.

● How to ensuredecisionmakers engage in an appropriate changemanagementstrategy?

Howtoresolvethechallenges

InanefforttoaddressthechallengeshighlightedintheprevioussectionTWG1agreedthat:

● Indevelopingapurpose/visionforeducation,thereneedstobeownershipofanappropriatesharedunderstandingamongallstakeholders.This

o entails opening up of decision making, involving consultation of allstakeholders includingparents,students, researchers,citizensandpolicymakers;

o requires active open dialogue and ensures transparency of theeducationalsystems;

o ensures thatpolicymakersmakedecisionsbasedonevidenceanddrawonresearchfromalearnercentreddesignsystem;

o embraceslocalandglobalneeds;localexpertisetoberecognised/valuedindecisionmakingprocess;and

o placesafocusonpedagogy.

● The vision must be actionable across and between all levels of system. The‘IndividualFulfilment&UniversalWell-being’model(SeeFigure6)wasacceptedbyallthemembersofthegroupasencapsulatingthekeyelementsthatneededtobepresentintheircountries’visions.

● Teacher professional learning is key, but we need to acknowledge that theirpedagogicalorientationisheavilyinfluencedbyvaluesandbeliefs;soessentiallyteachers’thinkingneedstobechallengedinorderforthemtodesignchallenginglearningopportunitiesfortheirstudents.

● Theneedtogatherevidencetodemonstratevisioninactionisrecognised.o Howtodecidewhatmetrics/assessmentareneeded?Thereisaneedfor

standardwayofcollectingdatafromallstakeholders.


▪ User experience evaluation in the context of the evaluationsystem.

o Learninganalytics▪ Value of the use of big data while being aware of ethical and

privacyissues.

Recommendations

Thefollowingrecommendationsweremade:

1. Policymakersneed toensure there isalignmentwithin theeducational systemwithanappropriatevisionforthedigitalage.

2. Alignmentneedstobegroundedwithinanactionablevisionthathasbuy-infromall stakeholders. Customise the ‘Individual Fulfilment & Universal Well-being’model (See Figure 6) as the starting point to develop a contextually relevantvision.

Figure6.TheYin-YangVision.

• UseofframeworkssuchastheUNESCOFramework(2011)(Figure4)asatooltoguidealignmentandimplementationofthevision.

• UsetherecommendationsfromTWG7withregardtotheimplementationofthevisiondevelopmentprocess.

• Effectiveuseoftechnologytocontinuouslycollectdataforinformationbasedondecision-making.

• Effectiveuseoftechnologyforsupportingtransparentpolicymaking.


Actions

FollowingthemeetinginBorovets,thegroupagreedtothefollowingactions:

● FinalEDUsummIT2017report.● Journal article tobedeveloped for Special issueofTechnology,Knowledgeand

Learning.Allgroupmemberstocontributeasauthors.● Possiblycontributetofollowingsymposia:

o SITE,WashingtonDC,USA,March2018o EdMedia,Amsterdam,TheNetherlands,June2018o OCCE,Linz,Austria,June2018o ECER,Bolzano,Italy,September2018

References

Butler, D., Leahy, M., Shiel, G., & Cosgrove, J. (2013). Building Towards a LearningSociety:ANationalDigitalStrategyforSchools.Dublin:St.Patrick’sCollegeofEducation,EducationResearchCentre.Fullan, M.(2013). Stratosphere: Integrating technology, pedagogy, and changeknowledge.Canada:Pearson.Toffler,A.(1980).Thethirdwave.NewYork,NY:WilliamMorrow. Twining, P., Raffaghelli, J., Albion, P. & Knezek, D. (2013).Moving education into thedigitalage:thecontributionofteachers’professionaldevelopment.JournalofComputerAssistedLearning,,426-437.doi:10.1111/jcal.12031Twining,P.,Browne,N.,Murphy,P.,Hempel-Jorgensen,A.,Harrison,S.&Parmar,N.(2017). NP3 – New Purposes, New Practices, New Pedagogy: Meta-analysis report.London: Society for Educational Studies. Retrieved fromhttp://edfutures.net/images/e/e7/NP3_Meta-analysis_report.pdfUNESCO (2008a). ICT competency standards for teachers: Competency standardsmodules. Paris: UNESCO. Retrieved fromhttp://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0015/001562/156207e.pdfUNESCO (2008b). ICT competency standards for teachers: Policy framework. Paris:UNESCO.Retrievedfromhttp://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0015/001562/156210E.pdfUNESCO (2011). ICT competency standards for teachers: Policy framework. Paris:UNESCO.Retrievedfromhttp://iite.unesco.org/pics/publications/en/files/3214694.pdf



Informallearningwithtechnology

SummaryReport

CathyLewin,ManchesterMetropolitanUniversity,UKKwok-WingLai,UniversityofOtago,NewZealandHansvanBergen,HogeschoolUtrecht,Netherlands

AminaCharania,TataTrusts&TataInstituteofSocialSciences,IndiaFerialKhaddage,BalamandUniversity,Lebanon

JeanGabinNtebutse,UniversityofSherbrooke,CanadaHiroakiOgata,KyotoUniversity,Japan

RogerSherman,SimmonsSchoolofSocialWork, USA DavidSmith,KaplanUniversity,USA

BarryQuinn,King’sCollegeLondon,UKBackgroundandcontext

Historicallytherehasbeenaninterest intherelationshipbetweeninformalandformallearningsinceacalltoactionwasmadeatEDUsummIT2009.Inthe2015EDUsummITinBangkok one of the main discussions was the challenge of how to ensure thateducational institutions recognizeandaccredit informal learning. Thispaperaddressesthe challenges and potential solutions to better understand student technologyexperiences in informal learning environments in order to inform learning in formalsettings.

Technology,suchassocialmediaandmobiledevices,offersmanybenefitsforinformallearning suchasnewandmore immediatewaysofaccessingandcreatingknowledge,greater social interaction, engagement anytime and anywhere, and new modes ofrepresentation(Cox,2013;Davies&Eynon,2015;Erstad&Sefton-Green,2013;Erstad,etal.,2016).Therearemultiplewaystodefinetheconstructofinformallearningwithnoconsensusas yet. In this paper, we broadly define informal learning as that which is notorganised/teacher-directed, curriculum-driven, assessed and leading to qualifications.However,we recognise that formaland informal learningoverlap somewhat, and thatattributesofbothcanbepresentinalearningactivity.The benefits of connecting to informal learning practices in formal contexts includeauthenticity, greater engagement, opportunities to develop 21st century skills and thepotentialtoenhancelearning(Banksetal.,2007;Fallik,Rosenfeld,&Eylon,2013;Hung,Lee,&Kim,2012; Itoetal.,2013; Lemke, Lecusay,Cole,&Michjalchik,2015). Schools


candrawoneverydayknowledgeandskillsheldbyyoungpeople,theirfamiliesandthewidercommunity(Banksetal.,2007;Erstadetal.,2013;Kumpulainen&Mikkola,2016).Policiesarealsobeingdevelopedtoformallyrecognise,validateandaccreditthein/non-formallearningthatoccursinthehome,communityandworkplace(seeWerquin,2010;Yang,2015).Non-formal learningsuchasafter-schoolclubscanconnectacademicandeverydayknowledge,enablingstudentstofocusoninterest-drivenactivitieswithmoreflexibility andwithout high-stakes testing but still benefiting academic learning (Deng,Connelly,&Lau,2016;NRC,2015).However,non-formallearningopportunitiesarenotcommonplace for students although its academic value is recognised by teachers(Birdwell,Scott,&Koninckx,2015).Duetotherapiduptakeoftechnologyinmanysocietiesandthedevelopingdigitalyouthculture,therehasbeengreaterinterestfrompolicymakers,educatorsandacademicsinconnectingformalandinformal learning(Erstad&Sefton-Green,2013;Sefton-Green&Erstad, 2016). For example, UNESCO, OECD and many individual countries havedeveloped policies relating to the recognition and validation of informal learning inrelation to lifelong learning and adulthood. Many developing countries are exploringways of reaching rural communities throughmobile technologies and outreach work.Non-formalschooling(e.g.,afterschoolclubs)isamajorpartoftheeducationecosysteminmany countries. Therehas beenmuch recent interest in supporting learning acrosscontextsatschool levelandthusfundinghasbeentargetedateducationalresearchtocontributetoknowledgeinthisarea(e.g.,H2020attheEUlevel).Asdigitaltechnologiesbecomemore ubiquitous is it becoming increasing important to investigate how theycanbeusedtobridgeformalandinformallearning.Issuesandchallenges

Wenowpresentthekeychallengesidentifiedthroughourdiscussion.

• Thereisalackofconsensusofdefinitionofinformallearning.

Pedagogicalchallenges• Howcaneducatorsencouragestudentstoengageininformallearningandrelate

ittoformallearning?• When young people use technology for informal learning, how can educators

supportself-engagement,self-regulation,criticalreflectionandresiliencesothatlearnerscontinuouslydevelop?

• We still need to understand how to recognise and integrate informal learningwithformallearning,andhowtechnologycouldsupportthispractice.

Policychallenges• Rigid structural constraints limit opportunities for engaging with informal

learninginformalcontexts.• Ethicalissuessuchasformalisingtheinformal,studentresistancetotheinvasion

ofpersonalspaces,securityandsafetyconcernsneedconsideration.• We need to understand how tomaintain inclusivity when bridging formal and

informallearning.


• There are different cultural expectations and the particularities of specificcontexts.

• Manycountries/regionsdonotsupporttherecognitionandaccreditationofpriorlearning.

Researchchallenges• Therearerelativelyfewmodelsofgoodpractice.• Ourunderstandingofhowtobridgetheformalandtheinformalislimited.• Engaging in such research is challenging because of the diversity of informal

learningandtheneedtoaddressethicalissues.

Technologychallenges• How can technology be used to record informal learning experiences, taking

accountofethicalissues?• In what ways can technology provide the structures to support students’ self-

engagement, self-regulation, critical reflection and resilience in informallearning?

• Investigatewhether or not technologies are shifting the paradigm andmakinglearningasocialactivity.

Recommendationsandactionablestatements

Lackofconsensusofdefinition:Weshould accept that a singledefinitionof informal learningdoesnot exist althoughmany suggestions (discrete, continuum, attributes) have been put forward and someresearcherschoosenottousethetermatall,referringinsteadtositesoflearning,sinceinformal learning is rather context specific. However, we still need a sharedunderstanding.Wecanmoreeasilyagreeonadefinitionofformallearningandconsiderthatinformallearningmightbroadlycoverotherinstancesoflearning.Formallearningisorganised/teacher-directed, curriculum-driven, involves tracking and assessment, andleadstoqualifications.However,werecognisethatformalandinformallearningoverlapasnotedabove.Wenowpresentourrecommendationsandactionablestatements.Forpractice:

• Identify how practitioners can share informal learning practices that have animpactonformallearningwiththeirstudents.

• Identify pedagogical approaches that take account of students’ self-directedlearningthatisrelevanttothecurriculumandalsosupportstudentstodevelopself-regulationskillsthroughinformallearning.

• develop teachers’ skillsandknowledge inorder tosupport thedevelopmentoftheir students’ digital competence including technical skills,cognitive/metacognitive skills (e.g., critical reflection, making connections


betweenall learningexperiences),andwhenandhowtosharelearning,aswellastheirunderstandingoftheethicalissuesofusingdigitaltechnologies.

• Investigate and experiment with new and innovative technologies andapplicationsineducationalcontextssuchasadvancementsinthexAPIandcmi5standards. These new technologies can track and report on both formal andinformallearningexperiences,whilemostLearningManagementSystemsdonotallowforthis.

Forpolicymaking:

• Provide teachers with professional learning and development opportunities todevelop pedagogical strategies and practices that could benefit learners toengageininformallearning.

• Targetparentsandstudentstodevelopabetterunderstandingoftheissues(e.g.,ethicalissues)relatingtotheconnectionbetweenformalandinformallearning.

• Developpolicy tocollectanduse informationaboutstudents’ informal learningpreferencesandactivities(e.g.,utilisingbigdata).

• Identifyandshareexemplarsofdifferentpolicyapproaches.• Promoteaccreditationofpriorlearningatalllevels(e.g.,schools,universities).

Forresearch:

• Develop technologies to enable learners to capture and reuse their learningexperiences(e.g.,theSCROLLsysteminthecontextoflanguagelearning).

• Developtechnologiestosupportcriticalthinking.• Conductmore evidence-based studies to understand the relationship between

formalandinformallearning.• Designstudiesthatcapturerichdataonstudentuseoftechnologyoutsideformal

institutions(e.g.,ethnographic,walkthroughs).

Actionplan

WeintendtosubmitanarticleforthespecialissuearisingfromEDUsummIT2017.Conferencetargets(subjecttoproposalacceptance):

• SymposiumcontributionatSITE2018,WashingtonD.C.,March26-30.• Symposium contribution at EdMedia, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, June 25th-

29th2018.• SymposiumcontributionatOCCE2018,Linz,Austria,June25th-28th2018.• SymposiumcontributionatECER,Bolzano,Italy,September,2018.


References

Banks,J.A.,Au,K.H.,Ball,A.F.,Bell,P.,Gordon,E.W.,Gutiérrez,K.D.,&Zhou,M.(2007).Learning in and out of school in diverse environments: Life-long, life-wide, life-deep.Seattle:LIFECenterandCenterforMulticulturalEducation,UniversityofWashington.Birdwell, J., Scott, R., & Koninckx, D. (2015).Non-formal learning could help to buildcharacterandcloseattainmentgap:Learningbydoing.London:DEMOS.Cox,M.J.(2013).FormaltoinformallearningwithIT:researchchallengesandissuesfore-learning.JournalofComputerAssistedLearning,29(1),1-21.Davies, C., & Eynon, R. (2013). Studies of the Internet in Learning and Education:Broadening theDisciplinary Landscape of Research. InW. H. Dutton (Ed.),TheOxfordHandbookofInternetStudies(pp.328-349).Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.Deng, L., Connelly, J., & Lau,M. (2016). Interest-driven digital practices of secondarystudents:Casesofconnectedlearning.Learning,CultureandSocialInteraction,9,45-54.doi:10.1016/j.lcsi.2016.01.004Erstad,O., Kumpulainen, K.,Mäkitalo, Å. , Schrøder, K.C., Pruulmann-Vegerfeldt, P.,&Jóhannsdóttir, T. (2016). Tracing learning experiences within and across contexts: ANordicapproach.InO.Erstad,K.Kumpulainen,Å.Mäkitalo,K.C.Schrøder,P.Pruulmann-Vegerfeldt&Jóhannsdóttir,T.(Eds.),LearningacrossContextsintheKnowledgeSociety(pp.1-14).Rotterdam/Boston/Taipei:SensePublishers.Erstad,O.,Gilje,Ø.,&Arnseth,H.C.(2013).Learninglivesconnected:Digitalyouthacrossschool and community spaces. Comunicar, 40, 89-98. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.3916/C40-2013-02-09Erstad,O.,&Sefton-Green,J. (2013).“DigitalDisconnect?The ‘DigitalLearner’andtheSchool”.InO.ErstadandJ.Sefton-Green(Eds.),Identity,Community,andLearningLivesintheDigitalAge(pp.87-104.)NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress.Fallik,O.,Rosenfeld,S.,&Eylon,B.(2013).Schoolandout-of-schoolscience:amodelforbridging the gap. Studies in Science Education, 49(1), 69–91.doi:10.1080/03057267.2013.822166.Hung,D., Lee, S. S.,&Lim,K.Y. T. (2012).Authenticity in learning for the twenty firstcentury: Bridging the formal and the informal. Educational Technology Research &Development,60(6),1071–1091.Ito,M., K. Gutierrez, S. Livingstone, B. Penuel, J. Rhodes, K. Salen, J. Schor, J. Sefton-Green,&S.Watkins. (2013).ConnectedLearning:AnAgenda forResearchandDesign.Irvine,CA:DigitalMediaandLearningResearchHub.Kumpulainen,K.,&Mikkola,A.(2016).TowardHybridLearning:EducationalEngagementand Learning in the Digital Age. In E. Elstad (Ed.), Educational Technology andPolycontextualBridging(pp.15-38).Rotterdam/Boston/Taipei:SensePublishers.


Lemke,J.L.,Lecusay,R.,Cole,M.,&Michalchik,V. (2015).Documentingandassessinglearningininformalandmedia-richenvironments.Cambridge,MA:MITPress.National Research Council (NRC) (2015). Identifying and supporting productive STEMprogramsinout-of-schoolsettings.Washington,DC:TheNationalAcademiesPress.Sefton-Green, J., & Erstad, O. (2016). Researching ‘learning lives’ – a new agenda forlearning, media and technology. Learning, Media and Technology. Online first. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2016.1170034Werquin,P. (2010).RecognisingNon-Formaland InformalLearning:Outcomes,PoliciesandPractices.Paris,France:OECDpublishing.Yang,J.(2015).Recognition,ValidationandAccreditationofNon-formalandNon-formalLearninginUNESCOMemberStates.Hamburg:UNESCOInstituteforLifelongLearning.



Professionaldevelopmentfortechnology-enhancedlearningleaders

SummaryReport

RhondaChristensen,UniversityofNorthTexas,USAKoosEichhorn,Lucasonderwijs,TheNetherlands

GhaiadaAlayyar,PublicAuthorityofAppliedEducationandTraining,KuwaitRowlandBaker,SantaCruzCountyOfficeofEducation,USA

PaulD’Souza,MumbaiUniversityAffiliatedEducationColleges,IndiaSheshaKantaPangeni,KathmanduUniversityofEducation,Nepal

GeraldKnezek,UniversityofNorthTexas,USADominikPetko,PädagogischeHochschuleSchweiz,Switzerland

SarahPrestridge,GriffithUniversity,AustraliaHenkSligte,KohnstammInstituteUniversityofAmsterdam,TheNetherlandsAlexanderUvarov,MoscowStatePedagogicalUniversity,RussianFederation

BasvanEekhout,IndependentConsultant,TheNetherlands

Backgroundandcontext

“Leadinginacultureofchangemeanscreatingacultureofchange.Itdoesnotmeanadoptinginnovations,oneaftertheother,itdoesmeanproducingthecapacitytoseek,criticallyassess,andselectivelyincorporatenewideasandpractices–allthetime,inside

theorganizationaswellasoutsideit”(Fullan,2001,p.44).The focus of Thematic Working Group (TWG) 3 was professional development forlearning leaders with an emphasis on how to provide effective technology enhancedinstruction from theperspectiveof a cultureof learning. Learning technologies shouldsupportcurriculuminwaysthatarenototherwisepossible.Ratherthanfocusingonthetechnology, learning activities shouldmeet instructional goals and involve technologywhen it enhances learning. Often educators may conceptualize integration astechnologicalratherthanprimarilyascurricular(Hutchison&Reinking,2011).However,thefocusshouldbeonthelearningandthecurriculum,notthetechnology.Thesuccessor failure of the effective use of technology for learning in schools can be linked tobeliefsandideasofinstructionalleaders(Chang,2012;Hughes&Zachariah,2001).Thispaperfocusesontherolelearningleadershaveintheeffectiveuseoftechnologyinthelearningenvironmentandhowtoprovideprofessionaldevelopmentfortheseleaders.


Issuesandchallenges

Based on the pre-summit paper prepared with the input of group members prior toEDUsummIT 2017 and discussions held during the summit, key issues and challengesregarding the professional development of learning leaders for the effective use oftechnologyintegrationwereidentified.Groupmembersdetermineditwasimportanttodefinetheroles,characteristicsandpracticesoftheselearningleadersaswellashowtoassess the impact of their leadership.One important issue discussedwas determininghow these leaders best learn to enhance their leadership abilities. The group firstdefined the learning leaders as those who were charged with enhancing instructionthrough the use of technology. Characteristics of learning leaders were describedfollowedbywaystopreparetheselearningleaderstointegratetechnologyintolearning.

DefiningLearningLeaders

Learningleadersmayincludeprincipals,curriculumspecialists,technologycoordinators,teacher team leaders, instructional technology specialists, teacher leaders or otherscharged with enhancing instruction. Leadership positions are typically chosen on thebasisofpriorexperiencesandactivities.Inschools,teacher-leaderscanbeidentifiedinmuchthesameway.Nomatterwho is thedesignated learning leader inaschool, it isimportantforthelearningcommunitytohaveasharedvisionfortransforminglearning.Schoolculturethatemphasizessharedgoalsandcollaborationhasbeenshowntohaveapositive impact on innovative practices and learner-centered pedagogies by teachers(Jacobson, So, Teo, Lee, Pathak, & Lossman, 2010). An overall approach/mindset forlearningleadersistohaveacurious,creative,andcriticalapproachtothefutureoftheorganization of learning. Creating a vision should support the improvement ofpedagogicalprocessesforoveralllearninggoals.Apremiseforimplementingtechnologyfor enhanced learning shouldbe that students experience technology as ameaningfullearning tool and show improved motivation and academic performance as well asincreasedtechnologicalskills.

CharacteristicsoflearningleadersTherearenumerouscharacteristicsthatarerequiredtobeasuccessfulleadertosupporta curious, creative, and critical approach to curriculum leadership underpinned bytechnology infusion. While individuals are unlikely to be proficient in all of thesecharacteristicsatthesametime,itisbeneficialtoidentifypotentialleadersthatpossessmanyofthefollowingcharacteristics:

• Focusonlearning:Theimprovementofstudent learningshouldbetheultimategoaloflearningleadersandnottheintroductionoftechnologyasameansinitsownright.

• Practitioner-research/design-based researcher: The leader should be able toengage in a systematic process of problem solving by employing theoreticalmodelsandaction-basedresearchmethods.

• Currentwithtechnologyrelevanttopedagogy:Theleadershouldbeinterestedinnewtrendsregardingpedagogicaluseoftechnologyandbeup-to-date.


• Ability to suggest suitable technology for specific contents and contexts: Theleader should be rooted in local contexts and understand the affordances forteachersandstudentsindifferentcontentareas.

• 21st century learning skills: The leader shoulddemonstrateexcellent skillswithregard to lifelong-learning strategies, technology-related skills, informationliteracy,computationalthinkingandothercross-cuttingabilities.

• Reflective practitioners: The leader is able to reflect on personal practice in-action and on-action and adapt his/her own practice according to theconclusions.

• Openness and willingness to encourage others: The leader cares for fellowcolleaguesandwantstoserveforothers’ improvement includingwithinhis/herownlocalcommunityandbeyondtootherprofessionalgroups.

• Broad focus on different technologies: The leader does not focus on onetechnologyalonebutisabletoprovideabroadmenuofmultipleoptionsthatisconstantlyupdated.

• Knowledge about change and management of change: The leader should beawareoftheoriesofeducationalchangeanddemonstratedifferentstrategiesformanagingchange.

• Empowerment of others: The learning leader should be open to collaborationandadistributedleadershipmodel.

PreparinglearningleaderstoenhancelearningwithtechnologyWhile there aremany leaders in a school system thatmay impact the integration oftechnology,thisdiscussionwillfocusontheschoolcontext.Thissectionwillincludethediscussionofideasrelatedtosupportingandpreparinglearningleaders.Theobjectiveisthat learning leaders are supported to enable a systemic change process. Learningleadersneedtobedirectedandsupportedandfacilitatethebuildingofaschoolvision.Toenableownershipofthissharedvision,theleaderneedstotakepartinestablishingachangeprocessthatincludesthecollaborativebuildingofshortandlong-termgoals.Itisimportanttonotethatlearningtoleadisatransformationalprocessthatdoesnotoccurinaone-timecourseorone-timeprofessionaldevelopmentsession. While there are many formal and informal methods of preparation, the professionaldevelopment opportunities for learning leaders should focus on the development ofleadershipcapacitythroughaprofessional learningcommunity.This leadercommunitycanbeonlineand/orface-to-face,inclusiveofleadersfromanumberofschoolssothatco-support and collaboration amongst the participants occurs.Within the community,participantstakeonanactionresearchprocess,contributingideas,sharingevidence,aswell as planning and developing processes and strategies for school reform. Leaderslearn from one another, building on ideas and reforming their own approaches.Fundamentally, the learning community is an active organization that informs andsupports leaders to lead change.Additionally, leadersneed to seekotherprofessionallearningopportunitiesthatgobeyondtheircommunityprovidingfeedbacktotheleadercommunity. Therearetwodefiningcharacteristicsofthe leadercommunity:building leaderstoactas community engagers and leaders to act as community enablers. As communityengagers,leadersestablishwhotheyareasaleaderaswellasdispositionsofleadership


such as how to contribute, share, critique, relationship building in a community. As acommunityenabler,leadersneedtounderstandandenactschoolreformincludinghowto:a)builda sharedvision (includingelementsofownership,usingdata, gapanalysis,strategies), b) focus on pedagogy appropriate for technology, c) support formentorship/coaches, and d) provide infrastructure (hardware, software, bandwidth,policies).Assessmentandimpact

Learning leaders should be able to determine the impact of an effective technologyenhanced implementation through an assessment plan. The plan should include acyclical design that includes vision, implementation and assessment with benchmarksandfeedbackthroughoutthecycle. The impactof learning leadersshouldbeconceptualizedholistically, includingpositive,negative and the unexpected side-effects (consequences) that are generated on thebasisoftheinterventions.Theinterventionsareassumedtobeinitiatedonthebasisofa'program theory' consisting of several presuppositions (or hypotheses) on how theinterventions could work in creating change mechanisms in persons (beliefs andpedagogical practices) and in organizationswith improvedoutcomes compared to theprevioussituation.Forlearningleaders,interventions(andthetheoriesbehindthemforchange, improvement, innovation and transformation) should have impact (effects,consequences) on student learning, including technology enhanced learning, teaching(including the pedagogical practices), and schools in their transformation towards thefuture. Thisimpactistobeassessedwithrespecttothediversecontext-dependentconditionsandfactorsforsuccessandfailure.Someinterventionstoimprovelearningareeffectiveincertaincontexts (classrooms, schools,districts, countries)andnot inothercontexts.Learning leaders should be concerned with finding answers to the generic question"what does or does not work, for whom, under what conditions and in whatcircumstances?” This question can be answered by measuring outcomes of theinterventionontheonehandandthrough(qualitative)assessmentbyactorswithinthedifferent contexts on the other hand. Learning leaders should be both reflectivepractitionersandactionresearcherstofindoutwhatworksforwhomineachsituation. Tomakeanimpactonlearning, leadersmustuseacontinuouscycleofvisioncreating,intervention development, implementation, and assessment. To assess thesecomponents in this cycle, metrics for assessing the impact are necessary withbenchmarkscreatedalongthewaytoprovideformativeandinformativeassessmentforoftheimprovementprocess.


Recommendations

TWG3 completed recommendations for three targeted groups – decision makers,researchers,andpractitioners.Threelistsofrecommendationsareprovidedbelow.Recommendationsfordecisionmakers

• Value and support research-based, professional development opportunities forlearningleaders.

• Give space to support risk-taking by leaders, embrace innovation, bewilling tofailandlearn.

• Setuppositionsandrecruitment-systemsforlearningleaders.• Provideincentivesforlearningleaders(time,recognition).• Establishanetworkofprofessionaldevelopmentforlearningleaders.• Recognize that learning leaders have an important role in the creation and

implementationofpolicies.Recommendationsforresearchers

• Conductemergentresearchbasedontheneedsofthepractitioner.• Providemoreopportunitiesforpractical/practitioner-basedresearchers.• Participateinsharing,disseminationandmarketingresearchoutcomes.• Studylearningleaderstomeasuretheircharacteristicstocreateatypologythat

informsprofessionaldevelopment.• Produceasimple,practicalmeasuretoidentifypotentiallearningleaders.• Provideadashboardthatproducesoutput forassessing interventions,onethat

includesbackenddata.Recommendationsforpractitioners

• Keepcurrentonthelatestresearchinthefield.• Takerisks,seekopportunitiesfornewtheideas,trysomethingdifferent.• Useapracticalmeasuretoidentifypotentiallearningleaders.• Createandbeactiveinanetworkoflearners.• Encourageandmentorotherstobecomelearningleaders.• Seek to expand your knowledge of change management and apply this

knowledgeinyourownworkingenvironment.Actionplan

Theworkinggroupdevelopedanactionplantocontinuethesharingofideasoflearningleaders.Thereisaplantodevelopascholarlyjournalarticleofresearch-basedfindingsrelatedtodevelopinglearningleaderswhointegratetechnology.Somemembersofthegroup intend to participate in the development of a symposium for the EdMedia andInnovation conference in Amsterdam in June 2018 and the Society for InformationTechnologyinTeacherEducationinMarch2018.Wewilldeveloppresentationsrelatedto practitioners at conferences such as the International Society for Technology inEducation (ISTE) in June 2018 and presentations related to European Conference onEducational ResearchBolzano, Italy, September 2018.Wealso think it is important to


explore ways to extend the synergy beyond the EDUsummIT event, such as onlineforumsandface-to-facemeetings.

References

Chang, I. Hua. (2012). The effect of principals' technological leadership on teachers'technological literacy and teaching effectiveness in Taiwanese elementary schools.JournalofEducationalTechnology&Society,15(2),328.Fullan,M.(2001).Leadinginacultureofchange.SanFrancisco,CA:Jossey-Bass.Hughes, M., & Zachariah, S. (2001). An investigation into the relationship betweeneffective administrative leadership styles and the use of technology. InternationalElectronicJournalforLeadershipinLearning(IEJLL),5(5).Hutchison, A., & Reinking, D. (2011). Teachers’ perceptions of integrating informationand communication technologies into literacy instruction: A national survey in theUnitedStates.ReadingResearchQuarterly,46(4),312-333.Jacobson,M.J.,So,H-J.,Teo,T.,Lee,J.,Pathak,S.,&Lossman,H.(2010).Epistemologyandlearning:ImpactonpedagogicalpracticesandtechnologyuseinSingaporeschools.Computers&Education,55(4),1694-1706.



Digitalagencytoempowerequityineducation

SummaryReport

MiriShonfeld,KibbutzimCollegeofEducation,IsraelDonPassey,LancasterUniversity,UKLonAppleby,DurhamCollege,Canada

MiriamJudge,DublinCityUniversity,IrelandToshinoriSaito,SeisaUniversity,Japan

AnnekeSmits,WindesheimUniversity,TheNetherlands

With

ShahrazadKablan,LoudounCountyPublicSchools,USALouiseStarkey,VictoriaUniversityofWellington,NewZealand

IntroductionIn EDUsummIT 2017, Thematic Working Group (TWG) 4 researched digital agencyempoweringequity ineducation. Inaworldwheredigitalengagementwith learning isincreasing,bothonsiteandonline, it is importantthatconceptsandconcernsofdigitalagency are considered appropriately by policymakers and practitioners when theydevelop and implement provision for learners, locally, regionally, nationally andinternationally.Theresearchwasundertakenintwostages:

• PriortotheSummit,weundertookareviewofanexistingliteraturethatrelatedtothis topic,askedkey informants tocompleteashortquestionnaire,exploredhow a number of projects had addressed this issue and what their outcomeswere,andcreatedadiscussionpaperfortheTWG.

• At the Summit,wediscussed thedefinitionof digital agency, the challengesofdigitalagencyempoweringequityineducation,waysinwhichwemightaddressthese challenges, and recommendations we would offer to key stakeholders(policymakers,practitionersandresearchers).

AdefinitionofdigitalagencyWe recognised at the outset the need to consider an appropriate definition of digitalagencyifweweretoconsiderthistopicadequately.Consequently,andearlyonduringthe Summit, we developed the following definition, which we used throughout our


subsequentwork:

• Digital Agency (DA) - consisting of digital competence, digital confidence anddigitalaccountability - is the individual’sabilitytocontrolandadapttoadigitalworld.

TheissueThe topic is concerned with a major issue that faces all those concerned with andchargedwithinfluencingeducation.Technologyhasbroughtmanybenefitstotheworld,but its increasing determinism in all societies across the world today (wheretechnologiesaremanagedbycorporationsand ‘given’ toother individuals tobeused)raises a critical question about how technology is used andwhose interests it serves.Whenwe lookat theworld in2017, thepicture thatemergescanbeoneofpowerfulvested interests, using technological progress to further corporate objectives. Indeed,there are several unsettling examples of this around the world today, at national,corporateor individual levels.Atthismoment inhistory,whenscienceandtechnologyhave brought us much innovation and invention, it is wise to remember that theprogressrestsonthepoweroffreethinkingandtheprimacyof individualfreedomanddignity.Toguaranteesuchpowertoallcitizensequitably,educationonandwithdigitaltechnologyshouldbedesignedandpracticed,fundamentallybasedontheideaofdigitalagency.Educatorswillusemoreratherthanlesstechnologyinthefutureandthereforeitisessentialthatwiththisincreaseduseoftechnologycomesaclearunderstandingofthe relevance of digital agency and how to achieve it. Digital agency enshrines theprinciplesofaccessandequityassurelyasArticle1oftheUnitedNationsDeclarationofHumanRights(1948),ensuringthataswegoforwardasaglobalsocietydrivenbydigitalandothertechnologies,yettobeinvented,theindividualwillalwaysretainhisandherability to control and adapt to accelerating changes in society through the exerciseofdigitalcompetence,digitalconfidence,anddigitalaccountability.Whydigitalagencyissoimportant?In an increasingly technological world, there is a need to constantly reconsider andaddress the question of technological determinism and the interaction between newtechnologies and society. The age-old question of whether technology controls us(technologicaldeterminism)orwhetherweasindividualsshapenewtechnologiesasweuse and interact with them (social shaping of technology), is central to the notion ofdigitalagency.Currently,giventhepaceatwhichtechnologyisadvancing,whetheritbein science, medicine, business and even civic society through the development of e-Government systems, the individual can become not just overpowered but alsodisempowered. In the interests of social cohesion and individual well-being, policymakersneedtoensurethatpoliciesareinplacetoequipcitizenswiththetools(culturalcapital rather than hardware and access alone) that allow them to interact withconfidence and competence with new technological tools and systems. At the sametime, understanding the implications for changes that new technologies embody, andimpacts those have on how individuals behave, communicate and interact within achangingsociety,isaclearneedforallcitizens.Intheabsenceofdigitalagency,thereisadangerthat individualswill feel less incontroloftheirownlivesandsuccumbtothebelief that theyhave littleorno say inhownew technologies shapeandcontrol theirlives.Therefore,digitalagencyaswehavedefineditisawayofempoweringpeopleto


dealwithnewtechnologiessothattheyfeeltheyhavearoleinhowtheyadopt,adapttoandusethemwiselyandresponsibly.

BackgroundAgencyhasbeena conceptexploredwithin the research literature for some time.Forexample,Martin in2004defined learneragencyas“thecapabilityof individualhumanbeingstomakechoicesandactonthesechoicesinawaythatmakesadifferenceintheirlives”(p.135).Morerecentlyintheliterature,Starkey(2017)statedthatdigitalagencyis:“Theability for individuals tocontrolandmanage theiruseofdigital technologiesandonline presence. This includes managing identity, initiating interactions, usingtechnologies for self-identified purposes and modifying or developing digital tools”.These requirements for developing digital agency are closely aligned with earlierconceptions of uses of digital technologies that are differentiated into ‘consumer’ or‘producer’ activities and outcomes. Some studies have explored how digital agencymightbedevelopedthroughlearneragency(Bjørgen,2010;Erstad&Silseth,2008).Withcomputing and computer science education currently being developed and integratedintocurriculaacrossincreasingnumbersofcountries,theroleofcodingisanimportantconcern in this respect also, as discussed by Corneliussen and Prøitz (2015) and deAlmeida, Delicado, de Almeida Alves and Carvalho (2015). Other studies have shownhowdigital agencyhas arisen fromadult-focusedprojectsmanagedwithin developingcountries (Coelho, Segatto,& Frega, 2015;Vaughan, 2012). Some studies point to thefact that digital activities are offering the potential for more intercultural socialinteraction (Dezuanni & Monroy-Hernandez, 2012); however, in this context,Gudmundsdottir (2010) andHatlevik andChristophersen (2013)highlight factors (suchashomecircumstances, languagefacility,andculturalcapital)thataffectdigitalagencyfromadigitalequityperspective.It is clear from features in the articles in this section that an important element ofagency concerns culture and interculturality (as cultural background may well affectwaysthatdifferentindividualswillengagewithstudent-centerednessorbeingincontrol,forexample). InourresearchpriortotheSummit,weidentifiedrelevantprojectsfromaround the world, explored how they had tackled key issues, and what had beenachieved (discussed more in the Discussion Paper,http://unesco.unibit.bg/en/EDUsummIT17).These included:theTechnology,Education,and Cultural Diversity (TEC) Center in Israel; the Global Classroom in Canada; theDissolvingBoundariesProjectinIreland;clustersofschoolsinNewZealandthataimtodevelopagencythroughtheuseofdigital technologies, includingManaiaKalani;andascaffoldingapproach firstdeveloped to support indigenousAustralian learners, amongothers.

ThechallengesIn termsofdigitalagencyempoweringequity ineducation, thechallengesweneed toconsiderareidentifiedwithinaconceptmapwepresent(Figure1).Itisclearthatthereis no one single or simple challenge to consider. The multiplicity of elements to beconsideredandtheirinter-relationshipsarecomplex,andtheyoftenlieatasocietallevelrather than within a single sector of society – education. The challenges can beconsideredinthreedifferentcategories:


• Digitalcompetence,whichconsistsof,forexample:o Traditionalliteracyandnumeracyaswellasdigitalliteracy.o Criticalthinking.o Producer,aswellasconsumer,skillsandabilities.o Knowledgeoflanguagesthatareimportantintheonlineworld.

• Digitalconfidence,whichconsistsof,forexample:

o Easeofuseofapplicationsandsoftware.o ConfidencetohandleICTindifferentcontexts–inthefamily,community

andsociety.o Digital autonomy – knowing the informed basis of one’s choices and

actions.

• Digitalaccountability,whichconsistsof,forexample:o Digitalresponsibilityforoneselfandforothersofone’sdigitalactions.o Knowledgeofthedigitalworld,anditsethicalissues.o Understandingconcernswithandensuringsecurityandprivacy.o Understandingtheimpactofourdigitalactivities.

Figure1.Challengesarisingfromourconferencediscussions[Note1].

Howtoaddressthem?While there isno single challenge, thereare similarlyno simpleanswersas tohow toaddress thechallenges.Appropriatemobilisationof thedifferent sectorsof society, ashasalreadybeenimplementedine-citylocalitiesinsomecountries,isneededtoexploreways todo this. Societyasawholehas tobe involved,withdetermination toachieveoutcomesacrossperiodsoftimesupportedwithregularmonitoringandre-focus,whichcannoteasilybegainedfromasimpleimplementation.Abuildingofunderstandingandawareness, a movement towards users informing the practices of developers, and a


greater focus on producer activities (activities that produce outcomes fromprogramming, computing and digital creativity) rather than consumer activities (usingresourcesandmaterialsthatothersprovide)mustbeinplace.Aconceptmap(Figure2)gives ideas of the elements that should be addressed, but ways to do this must beexploredinafullycontextualisedway.

Figure2.Challengesandelementstobeaddressed[Note1].RecommendationsOurrecommendationsare:

1. Digitalagencymustbeguaranteedequitablyforallcitizens.2. Policymakersandeducatorsmustadoptdigitalagencyasacriticalgoalforsocial,

civic,andeconomicwell-being.3. Education about and with digital technology should be based on the idea of

digital agency, designed, practised and provided equitably for all citizensregardlessofage,race,ethnicity,genderorallotherhumanattributes.


4. Curriculum and digital agency development for and involving teachers areurgently needed, and should be introduced into the education of pre-serviceteachers.

5. Engagement in producing rather than consuming activitiesmust be fostered inschools.

6. Interculturalcommunicationandlearningmustbefostered.7. Leadersofsocietymustprovidetoolsandspacestoenabledigitalequity[Note2]

(technological,social,andculturalaccesstosupportindividualandgroupuse)forall.

8. Ways to include households in adopting andmodelling digital agencymust bedeveloped.

9. Researchtosupportdigitalagencydevelopmentmustbecommissioned.Note

1.Thequestionmarksindicatepossible,unclearoruncertainlinks,withthenumberofquestionmarksindicatingdegreeofuncertainty. 2. Itshouldbenotedthatsomeauthorsarguethatdigital inclusionratherthandigitalequity is the concept (with associated practices) that should be the focus of societalconcern.ReferencesBjørgen,A.M.(2010).Boundarycrossingand learning identities–digitalstorytelling inprimary schools. International Journal ofMedia, Technology& Lifelong Learning, 6(2),161–178.Coelho,T.R.,Segatto,A.P.,&Frega,J.R.(2015).AnalysingICTanddevelopmentfromtheperspectiveofthecapabilitiesapproach:AstudyinSouthBrazil.TheElectronicJournalofInformation Systems in Developing Countries, 67(2), 1–14. Retrieved fromwww.ejisdc.org.Corneliussen,H.G.,&Prøitz,L.(2015).KidscodeinaruralvillageinNorway:Couldcodeclubsbeanewarenaforincreasinggirls’digitalinterestandcompetence?Information,Communication&Society,19(1),95-110.doi:10.1080/1369118x.2015.1093529.de Almeida, A.N., Delicado, A., de Almeida Alves, N., & Carvalho, T. (2015). Internet,children and space: Revisiting generational attributes and boundaries. New Media &Society,17(9),1436-1453.doi:10.1177/1461444814528293.Dezuanni, M., & Monroy-Hernandez, A. (2012). Prosuming across cultures: Youthcreating and discussing digital media across borders. Revista Communicar, 38.http://doi.org/10.3916/C38-2011-02-06.Erstad,O.,&Silseth,K.(2008).Agencyindigitalstorytelling:Challengingtheeducationalcontext.InLundby,K.(Ed.),DigitalStorytelling,MediatizedStories:Self-PresentationsinNewMedia(Vol.52,pp.213-232).NewYork,NY:PeterLang.Gudmundsdottir, G. (2010). From digital divide to digital equity: Learners’ ICTcompetenceinfourprimaryschoolsinCapeTown,SouthAfrica.InternationalJournalof


Education and Development Using ICT, 6(2), 84–105. Retrieved fromhttp://www.editlib.org/p/42335/.Hatlevik, O.E., & Christophersen, K.-A. (2013). Digital competence at the beginning ofupper secondary school: Identifying factors explaining digital inclusion. Computers &Education,63,240-247.doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.11.015.Martin, J. (2004). Self-regulated learning, social cognitive theory, and agency.EducationalPsychologist,39,135-145.Starkey, L. (2017). Three dimensions of student-centred education: a framework forpolicy and practice. Critical Studies in Education. Advanced online publication. doi:10.1080/17508487.2017.1281829.United Nations (1948). Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Retrieved fromhttp://www.ohchr.org/EN/UDHR/Documents/UDHR_Translations/eng.pdf.Vaughan, D. (2012). Using information and communications technology to buildcapabilities for well-being in post-conflict communities. The Capability Approach:DevelopmentPracticeandPublicPolicyintheAsia-PacificRegion,18,186.



Formativeassessmentsupportedbytechnology

SummaryReport

MaryWebb,King’sCollegeLondon,UKBentB.Andresen,AarhusUniversity,DenmarkCharoulaAngeli,UniversityofCyprus,Cyprus

AnaAmeliaCarvalho,UniversityofCoimbra,PortugalEvaDobozy,CurtinUniversity,Australia

HansLaugesen,NationalUnionofUpperSecondaryTeachers,DenmarkDjordjeM.Kadijevich,InstituteforEducationalResearch,Serbia

MikePhillips,MonashUniversity,AustraliaDoreenPrasse,SchwyzUniversityofTeacherEducation,Switzerland

AllardStrijker,NationalInstituteforCurriculumDevelopment,TheNetherlands

IntroductionThe future of assessment faces major challenges including the use of IT to facilitateformativeassessmentthatisimportantforimprovinglearners’development,motivationand engagement in learning. Inmany countries, in recent years, a renewed focus onassessmentstosupportlearninghasbeenpushingagainsttheburgeoningoftestingforaccountability, which in some countries, renders effective formative assessmentpracticesalmostimpossible.Moreover,asystematicreviewbyHarlenandDeakinCrick(2002) revealed that a strong focus on summative assessment for accountability canreducemotivation and disengagemany learners. At the same time use of IT-enabledassessments has been increasing rapidly, as they offer promise of cheaper ways ofdelivering andmarking assessments as well as access to vast amounts of assessmentdatafromwhichawiderangeof judgementsmightbemadeaboutstudents,teachers,schoolsandeducationsystems(Gibson&Webb,2015).Theseopportunitiesalsoextendto assessment of complex collaborative work (Webb & Gibson, 2015). Currentopportunities for using IT, including for harnessing the data that is being collectedautomatically, for formative assessment are underexplored and less well understoodthanthoseforsummativeassessments.Opportunities for learningwith ITandperhapswith less teacher input are increasing but this depends on students developing asautonomous or independent learners. Research in formative assessment includingeffective feedback has emphasised the value of peer assessment practices fordeveloping self-assessment capabilities and hence independent learners (Black,Harrison,Lee,Marshall,&William,2003).AtpreviousEDUsummITsthepossibilitiesandchallenges for IT-enabled assessments to support simultaneously both formative andsummative purposes were analysed (Webb, Gibson, & Forkosh-Baruch, 2013). While


these challenges remain, at EDUsummIT 2017 we focused on the opportunities andchallenges of IT supporting formative assessment because effective formativeassessmentisknowntobeextremelyimportantforlearning.Backgroundandterminology

Whilea varietyofdefinitionsareevident in the literature,weadoptedadefinitionbyBlackandWiliam(2009)whocharacterisedformativeassessmentasthegenerationandinterpretation of evidence about learner performance by teachers, learners or theirpeerstomakedecisionsaboutthenextstepsininstruction.Thisformof‘assessmentforlearning’allowsdecisionsaboutfutureperformancetobebetterfoundedthandecisionsmadeintheabsenceofformativeevidence(Black&Wiliam,2009).Evidencefromabroad-scalemeta-analysishasdemonstratedthatformativeassessmentimproves learning with strong effect sizes (Hattie, 2009) and has led to a renewedimpetus for assessment to support learning in a variety of cultural contexts (e.g., seeCarless&Lam,2014).Formativeassessmentsitsincontrasttosummative‘assessmentsoflearning’,whichareusedtoassessastudent’slearningattheconclusiontoalearningsequenceandaretypicallybasedonstandardsorbenchmarkstomakejudgements.In addition to assessment forand assessmentof learning, assessmentas learning is aphrasethathascreptintocommonuseineducationandreflectsarenewedfocusonthenatureof the integrationofassessmentand learningandhighlights the importanceofthedialoguebetween learners and teachers andbetweenpeers engaged in formativeassessments.WearguedatthisandpreviousEDUsummITsthatthis integrationcanbesupportedandpromotedbyIT(Webb,Gibson,&Forkosh-Baruch,2013). Inadditiontoincreasingopportunitiesforcollectingandprocessingassessmentdata,IThasenabledaproliferationoftoolsincludingthoseforclassroomusesuchasstudentresponsesystems(clickers) and many online systems that provide automatic feedback. These onlinesystems range from simple spellcheckers to sophisticated automatic feedback and‘intelligent tutoring systems’. Furthermoremoregeneral IT facilities suchasdiscussionboards, videocasts, videoconferencing and social media environments can supportcommunication and dialogic aspects of formative assessment. At the same timeadditionalsourcesoffeedbackhavebecomeavailabletolearners.Thus,forexample,alearner may choose to discuss their homework in an online forum where they mayreceivehelpfromexpertsorpeers.Inordertodeepentheirlearningexperiencefurthera student may take a Massive Open Online Course (MOOC) that supplements theirschool curriculum and perhaps tackles some of the topics in more depth or fromdifferentperspectives.Whiletheseopportunitiesoffermanypotentialbenefitstheyalsopresentadditionalchallengesforallstakeholdersbeyondthosechallengespresentedbyformativeassessmentperse.Challengesforformativeassessmentsupportedbytechnology

In Table 1 we summarise the challenges that we identified together with a briefexplanationandnoteofkeyissues.


Table1SummaryofChallengesandIssues

Challenge IssuesandExplanation

Motivationalandaffectiveaspects

Howtoaddressanddescribemotivationalandaffectiveissuesthatmayinfluencetheuseandvalidityofassessments?

Datafication Howtodecidewhichdatatocollect?Howtoanalyzeandinterpretdataandusethatmeaningfulinformationforformativeassessmenttosupportteachersandlearnersintheprocessoflearning?

Formsoffeedback

How to interpret the different forms of feedback and how toprovidescaffoldsforteachersandlearnerstomakesenseofdatainordertoincorporatedataallintofeedbackprocesses?

Balancebetweensummativeandformativeassessment

Howtomanage thebalanceandrelationbetweensummativeandformative assessment especially with respect to validity andtransparency?Usingdataformultiplepurposescanpresentathreattothevalidityofanassessment.

Privacyandethics

Howtodealwithdataprivacyandethicalissues?Whohasaccesstodata?Howisdataused?

Teachereducation

Howtodealwithteachereducationandlackofassessmentliteracyanddigitalliteracy?

Horizontalskills How to assess horizontal, general, complex skills such as 21stcentury skills? 21st century skills can consist of skills such ascreativity, problem solving, self-regulation, critical thinking,collaboration,communicationanddigitalliteracythataredifficulttoassessbecauseofthelackofdescriptions.

DigitalTools Howtoevaluateandselecttoolsfordifferentassessmentpurposesand stakeholders, tools for formativeassessment that support theprocessoflearningandgatheringdataduringthatprocess?

Intelligenttutoringsystems

Intelligent tutoring systems - What is their place in formativeassessment? What form should be the output of formativeassessment? Are the outputs recommendations or strictprescriptivestatements?


Learningoutcomes

How to describe learning outcomes for formative assessment,keeping in mind cultural aspects and validity issues? Learningoutcomes can be described as aims, goals, or learning objectives,relatedtotheactualcontextwhereformativeassessmentisused.

Sortsoffeedback

There are different sorts and different sources of feedback.Feedbackcancomefromhumansorprocessedfromdata.Learners,teachers and school leaders have to learn how to manage thosesorts and sources. What feedback do teachers want/expect fromlearners?

Largegroups Howtoassesslargegroupsoflearnersandtoprovideindividualisedfeedback?

Peerassessment Promoting,managing,timing,designingpeerassessments.Howtosetupaclimateinwhichlearnerscangivefeedbackonlineand/or face to face in a safe environment with supportiverelationshipsbetweenstudentsandbetweenstudentsandteacher?In some cultures, e.g. Confucian heritage settings, managing theissueof“savingface”.Willingnessandmotivationtoengageinpeerfeedbackandhowtoestablish credibility.Managing learners’ expectations. Ages of thelearners for engaging in useful feedback, different contexts andgroupsare relevant. Learnersdonotalwaysunderstand thegoals,different sources and of sorts feedback. How to promoteunderstandingofqualityworkandfeedbackindifferentcontents?

Integrity Plagiarism and other forms of cheating are critical especially tosummative assessments but understanding of expectations forintegrityneedstobedevelopedthroughformativeprocesses.

RecommendationstoStakeholders

Table 2 summarises our recommendations for stakeholders. Our experiences indicatethat in many educational establishments teachers are designers of learning andassessmentsystemsbutincreasinglyinstructionaldesignersandsoftwaredesignersalsohaverolesincreatingIT-enabledassessments.


Table2Summary of Recommendations for Policy Makers (P), Teachers (T), Designers (D),Researchers(R)andIndustryPartners(I)

Recommendations Stakeholders

Createopportunitiestoencourageanddevelopteachercapacitytoidentify, foster development of, and formatively assess horizontal,general,complex21stcenturyskills.

P

Realise the potential and be aware of the challenges when usingdatatomakedecisionsforformativeassessment.

P

Create opportunities for collaborative work with stakeholders inorder to examine the complex connections between meaningfuldatacollection,datainterpretation(learninganalytics)anddatausetosupportteachersandlearners.

P

Create systems that can be adaptive to contextual sensitivitiesidentified by ongoing dialogue involving teachers, learners, andsystemdesigners.

P,T,D,R,I

Give teachers and learners access to the data collection andprocessing model in addition to the final data state to fosterunderstandingoftheformativeelementsofthesetasks.

P,T,D,R,I

Representnewformsofdatabynewformsofvisualisationthataremeaningfultostakeholders.

P,T,D,R,I

Provide ongoing data literacy training to enhance effectiveinterpretation.

P,T,R

Increase awareness of the need to design online tasks, whereappropriate, that involve and assess horizontal, general, complex21stcenturyskills.

P,T,D,R,I

Create opportunities to encourage and develop teacheridentification, formative assessment and feedback provisionassociated with horizontal, general, complex 21st Century skills,whenonlinesystemsarenotappropriatefor formativeassessmentoftheseskills.

P,T,R


Incorporate formative and summative assessment of horizontal,general, complex 21st century skills (which may be highlightedthrougheffectivecasestudies).

P,T,R

Negotiateandensuresharedunderstandingofcriteriaorexamplesto allow for student self-assessment or peer-assessment of skilldevelopment.

P,T,R

Regardinglearningoutcomes,takeintoaccounttheaims/goalsetc.of different stakeholders. For example, mathematics learning hasmultiplepurposes:asavehicleforpersonaldevelopment,awaytocomprehend a beautiful discipline, a tool for solving problems inindustry.

P,T,D

Encourage discussions among stakeholders that would clarifymatters for a shared understanding and appropriate collaborativeimplementationregardinghowtodescribelearningoutcomes.

P,T,D

Increase awareness among people designing learning systems(includingteachers)thatassessmentdesignneedstobepartoftheinitial learning design irrespective of other contextual issues (e.g.,whetheritisafacetofaceactivityoranentirelearningmodule)thatencourage metacognition and connections within and betweencontent.

T,D,R

Make learning systems flexible and customizable to allowteachers/learners tomodify themforparticularcohortsof learnersorsituations.

T,D

Help students/teachers/school leaders to recognize differentsources of feedback and support students/teachers/school leadersinevaluatingandusingthem.

T

Develop students’/teachers’/school leaders’ skills of classifying,comparing, evaluating, connecting, and making use of feedbackdata.

P,T,D,R

Develop learners’ capacities for cognitive, metacognitive andaffective self-regulated learning in order to enable independentlearning from the feedback in various settings. For example, thereare a range of systems that give automatic feedback from spell-checkers to CAS (Computer Algebra System). In addition, developlearners’ capabilities with co-regulation and socially sharedregulatedoflearninginordertosupportcollaborativegroupworkinbothface-to-faceandonlinesettings.

T,D


Encourage teachers to recognise that students receive formativefeedback from a range of sources both inside and outside school.The two implications thatmay result are: 1) studentsmay look toteacherstoresolvetensionscreatedby inconsistent feedbackfromdifferingsources;2)studentsworkmaynotaccurately reflect theircapabilities.

T

ActionPlanTheworkinggroupwill:

1. Elaborateascholarlyarticleon“Challengesforformativeassessmentsupportedby technologies” by building on this short report and on research from pastEDUsummITsandthe2ndeditionoftheInternationalHandbookfor InformationTechnologyinPrimaryandSecondarySchools(Voogt,Knezek,Christensen,&Lai,2018)andtheworkofotherthematicworkinggroups.

2. Disseminate outcomes at various research conferences including: OCCE, 2018;SITE,2018;andthenextEDUsummit,2019.

3. Inform national governments and regional authorities of the findings andrecommendationstranslatingthisreportwhereappropriate.

4. Disseminateoutcomesatteacherconferencesandthroughteacherorganisationsincluding:NationalE-learningCenterConference,2018andAustralianCouncilforComputersinEducation(ACCE),2018.

Acknowledgements

Thanks toDirk Ifenthaler for hiswork on coordinating thediscussionpaperwhich fedintotheEDUsummITdiscussionsofTWG5.References

Black,P.,Harrison,C.,Lee,C.,Marshall,B.,&Wiliam,D.(2003).Assessmentforlearning:puttingitintopractice.Buckingham,UK:OpenUniversity.Black, P. & Wiliam, D. (2009). Developing the theory of formative assessment.EducationalAssessment,EvaluationandAccountability21,5-31.Carless, D., & Lam, R. (2014). Developing Assessment for Productive Learning inConfucian-Influenced Settings. In C. Wyatt-Smith, V. Klenowski, & P. Colbert (Eds.),Designing Assessment for Quality Learning (pp. 167-179). Dordrecht: SpringerNetherlands.Gibson,D.&Webb,M. (2015).Datascience ineducationalassessment.EducationandInformationTechnologies,20(4),697-713.Hattie,J.A.C.(2009).VisibleLearning:Asynthesisofover800meta-analysesrelatingtoachievement.Abingdon:Routledge.


Voogt, J., Knezek, G., Christensen, R., & Lai, K. W. (2018). International handbook ofinformation technology in primary and secondary education (2nd edition). Singapore:Springer.Webb, M. E., & Gibson, D. (2015). Technology enhanced assessment in complexcollaborativesettings.EducationandInformationTechnologies,20(4),675-695.Webb, M. E., Gibson, D., & Forkosh-Baruch, A. (2013). Challenges for informationtechnology supporting educational assessment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning29(5),451-462.



Developingcreativityinteachersandlearners

SummaryReport

DanahHenriksen,ArizonaStateUniversity,USAMichaelHenderson,MonashUniversity,Australia

DormaBaker,PajaroValleyUnifiedSchoolDistrict,USASonaCeretkova,ConstantinethePhilosopherUniversityinNitra,Slovakia

MirkaČernochová,CzechRepublicEdwinCreely,MonashUniversity,Australia

MichaelDoyle,BulgariaOlegKonstantinov,ULSIT,BulgariaEugeniaKovatcheva,ULSIT,Bulgaria

MedaGedaraPeiris,SriLankaEvgeniaSendova,BulgarianAcademyofScience,Bulgaria

ElenaShoikova,ULSIT,BulgariaErkkoSointu,UniversityofEasternFinland,Finland

ChrisTienken,SetonHallUniversity,USAPaoloTosato,Ca'FoscariUniversityofVenice,ItalyRaymondTrippe,LucasOnderwijs,TheNetherlands

Introduction

Human creativity has always been, and will increasingly become, one of the mostimportant factors that builds and shape our society, and facilitates approaches andsolutionstochallengesandissuesinourcomplexworld(Freedman,2007).Creativityhasbeen tightly linked to both sweeping and incremental innovations and discoveries,acrossmanycontexts, in thearts, thesciencesandalldisciplines (Catterall,2002). It isemphasizedmore strongly than ever today, both in theworkplace and the classroom(Sawyer,2011),andeducationischargedwiththetaskofactualizingthisimportanceinteachingand learningpractices.Educational institutionsandgovernmentsglobally,areincreasinglycallingforattentiontodevelopingcreativethinking,asa21stcenturyskillinlearners.Researchhasshownthatdevelopingcreativity in learners iscloselyrelatedtocreativeteaching(Amabile,1989).Scholars have also noted that in current global contexts, the construct of creativity isultimatelytiedtoconsiderationsoftechnology—sincenewtechnologiesareoftenapartofthecontextsweteach,learn,andworkwithin,andareessentialtoolsforthinkingandcreating(Zhao,2012).Contemporarytechnologiesprovidenewandpowerfulwaystobecreative,whichbrings implications for teachers and students in classrooms (Mishra,&


The Deep-Play Research Group, 2012). However, technologies can also inhibit orchallenge creative endeavours. Because technology-fluency and creative thinking areincreasinglytoutedascorewaysofthinkingandworkforsuccessinthe21stcentury,itismore important thanever thatwedevelop anunderstandingofwhat goes into theseconstructsforlearnersandteachers.EDUsummIT2017Outcomes

Creativityisacomplexandoftenill-definedconcept,andthisispartofthechallengethateducational systems, schools,andpolicymakershave faced in instantiating it.Tobeginfrom a point of common definition, TWG6 determined to adopt the perspective thatcreativeendeavours(processesandproducts)arecharacterizedasNovel,Effective,andWhole (NEW), as defined by Mishra and Koehler (2008)—and noted by Henriksen,Mishra, and Fisser (2016), stemming from EDUsummIT 2015. We assert creativityinvolvesapproachestothinkingratherthanasetbodyofknowledgethatcanbetaught.However,wecan reinforceandsupport sustainedcreativitybyengagingwith the ideathat it can become a ‘habit of themind’. This alsomeans that the education system/educatorsneedtobeabletorecognizeandsupportasustainedfacilitationofcreativityasahabitofthemind,andagreeuponwhatthatisandhowtodoso—achallengethatcanvarygreatlyacrosscontextsandcultures.The goal of TWG6 was to explore the complex challenges to developing creativity inteachersandlearners.AnoutcomeofEDUsummIT2017wastheidentificationofasmallselectionofwhatwefeelarethemostbroadlysignificantorcompellingproblemsfacedbyeducationalstakeholders involved inthechallengeofenactingcreativity inteachingand learning. In response to each of the problems we developed recommendations,where relevant, for several key agents, including: researchers, policy makers, andeducationalpractitionersaswellasteachereducators.ProblemsandRecommendations

Ourrecommendationsare intendedto improvethe instantiationofcreativitywithandthroughtechnology,for21stcenturylearningsettings.Thefollowinglistprovidesabriefdescriptionofkeyproblemsandsuggestedrecommendations.

1. Creativityishardtodefine,andthereforedifficulttorecognize,encourageand

evaluate. It is a complex, multi-faceted concept that resists simple definitionsandisusedindifferentwaysacrosssystemsandcontexts.However,becauseitisill-defined,itcanbedifficulttoconsistentlyinstantiateinteachingandlearning.Inotherwords, teachers and learnersoften struggle to identifywhen it occursand understand how it can be facilitated. Stakeholders are in need of a clearvision, specific strategies/principles, and exemplars of creativity in practice tohelp them better understand how it varies across contexts and may beinstantiatedintheirown.o Recommendation-Researchers:engageineducation/creativityresearchthat

bothworksfromcommonbroadscholarlydefinitionsofcreativity,andalsoseeks to provide a working definition for creativity in education contexts.Importantly, this work should offer explicit strategies for recognizing,developingandevaluatingcreativitywithandthroughdigitaltechnologiesineducationalpracticeandpolicy.


o Recommendation-Teachereducators:Workwithpre-serviceand in-serviceteacherstohelpthemtakebroad/general ideasaboutcreativityinteachingand learning, to imagine and transfer them to their own pedagogical styleandcontext.

o Recommendation - Policy makers: Develop a rich array of cases/examplesthat help exemplify and visualizewhat creativity looks like across teachingand learning contexts. Engage with creativity/education teachers andresearcherstobegintodevelopaclearerpictureofhowwedefinecreativityasanapproachtoteachingandlearning.

2. Creativity is not embedded or valued enough in the culture of education,

includingwhatandhowweteach,evaluateandassess. It isnotvaluedacrossdisciplines, as a graduate attribute, or as a teaching and learning method—without legitimate attention and resources across educational settings andcontexts, it is often the first thing to fall away in favor of other educationalprinciplesorvalues.Evenwhenpolicyreferstocreativity,thisdoesnotguaranteeinstantiationofcreativeteachingorlearningwithincurricula,testingpolicies,andpractices. Schools are often structured around traditional ways of teaching,learning, and knowing, and policy/practice and standardized, high-stakesassessment often rewards conventional, one-right-answer approaches, andpunishesnovel,effectivepracticesoranswers.o Recommendation - Policy makers: Embed creativity within both broad

principles and specific outcomes for teaching (howwe teach) and learning(whatistaught,andhowlearnersengage).

o Recommendation - Teacher educators: Ensure pre-service teachers areinvolved in creative teaching/learning in which the teacher educatorsimplementing creativemethods themselves. Pre-service teachers are givenopportunitiestopracticecreativeteachingandbringtheirownideas.

3. Digital technologies both support and constrain creativity.Many stakeholdersmay lack access to, and knowledge of, digital technologies and how theymaysupport or constrain creativity. Putting digital technologies into schools mayresolve issues of physical access, but does not necessarily resolve issues ofcultural capital and other significant barriers, and does not guarantee creativepracticesoroutcomes.Thedesignofsoftware/hardwaremayconstrainteacherandlearnercreativityaswellasgeneratenewwaysofworkingandthinking.o Recommendation-Policymakersneedtobecautiouswhenrecommending

technology‘solutions’.o Recommendation-Teachers:Recognizethattechnologiescanbothconstrain

andfacilitatecreativity,andthat learnersmaynothavethesameaccessorknowledgeoftechnologiestoeffectivelyengageincreativeendeavors.

4. Teachersfinditdifficulttointegrateteachingcreatively.Researchsupportsthe

notion that creativity in learners is encouraged through creative teachingpractices.Therefore,withoutprofessionaldevelopmentandclearstandardsthat


valuecreativepractices,teacherswilloftenstruggletoengageinorunderstandhowtoenactcreativeactivitiesandpractices.o Recommendation-Policymakers(educationsystems):todevelopmeaningful

professional learning opportunities to support teachers to: (i) recogniseenvironmentsthatcansupportcreativelearning;(ii)adoptcreativeteachingpractices; (iii) nurture creativity in students, and (iv) evaluate and assesscreativity(includingtheprocess,notonlytheproduct).

o Recommendation - Policy makers (teacher standards): stimulate teachers’capabilities in regards to creativity by identifying and embeddingexpectations relating to creativity into teacher standards and professionallearningrequirements.

o Recommendation - Teacher educators: Provide future and current teacherswithopportunitiestolearnabouthowtoengagecreativityintheclassroom.Explicitlydiscusstheideathatallpeoplearecapableofcreativethinking,andofferteacherssupporttoconsiderhowthislooksfortheirownprofessionalteachingpractice.

5. Learners often strugglewith how to be creative.Perhapsdue to the fact that

creativity isnotclearlydefinedandrarely instantiated inschoolsandeducationstructures,learnersareoftenleftunsureofwhatitmeanstobecreativeorhowtoapproachcreativeworkoropen-endedprojects.Theyoftendonotidentifyascreative,andthereforearelimitedintheirabilitytoengageincreativethinking,ornovelpracticesintheirownthinkingandlearning.

o Recommendation - Researchers: Study learners’ perceptions of theircreativity. Study how teachers can support learners’ understanding ofcreativity.

o Recommendation-Teachers:Support learners’creativeagency,nurturetheideathateveryonecanbecreative.Develophabitsof thinkingandworkingthatenhance/expandcreativity.

o Recommendation - Teacher educators: Teach pre-service and in-serviceteachersaboutcreativehabitsofmind,andofferopportunitiesforthemtopracticethese.

o Recommendation - Policy makers: Enact policy standards that encourageteacherstovaluecreativityinalllearners,andofferclearguidelinesforhowteacherscansupportthisinstudents.

6. School systems and environments can be constraining to creativity. Schoolstructures are often built on traditional (frequently behaviorist) principles ofthinkingandlearning,whichlimitcreativitybyrewardingconventionandlimitedapproaches/answers, and punish imagination, and novel, effective and wholepractices,bothforteachersandlearners.


o Recommendation - Teachers: Look for opportunities in curricula andclassroompractices,toengagewithandinfusetheideathateverybodycanbecreativeinschoolstructures.

o Recommendation - Policy makers: Offer clear guidelines for how schoolsystemscansystemicallyvalueandsupportcreativeenvironments.

o Recommendation - Researchers: Study school environments that appear toeitherconstrainorsupportlearners’creativity.

References

Amabile, T.M. (1989). Growing up creative. Buffalo, NY: The Creative EducationFoundation.Catterall, J.S. (2002).Theartsandthetransferof learning. InR. J.Deasy (Ed.),CriticalLinks:Learningintheartsandstudentacademicandsocialdevelopment(pp.151-157).Washington,DC:ArtsEducationPartnership.Freedman,K.(2007).Artmaking/troublemaking:creativity,policy,andleadershipinarteducation.StudiesinArtEducation:AJournalofIssuesandResearch,48(2),204-217.Henriksen,D.,Mishra,P.,&Fisser,P. (2016). Infusingcreativityandtechnology in21stcentury education: a systemic view for change. Journal of Educational Technology &Society,19(3),27.Mishra,P.,&TheDeep-PlayResearchGroup(2012).Rethinkingtechnology&creativityinthe21stcentury:Crayonsarethefuture.TechTrends,56(5),13-16.Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2008, March). Introducing technological pedagogicalcontentknowledge.PaperpresentedattheAmericanEducationalResearchAssociationConference.Sawyer,R.K.(2011).Explainingcreativity:Thescienceofhumaninnovation.Oxford,UK:OxfordUniversityPress.Zhao, Y. (2012).World class learners: Educating creativeandentrepreneurial students.ThousandOaks,CA:CorwinPress.



Learningfromnationalpolicyexperiences

SummaryReport

DavidGibson,CurtinUniversity,AustraliaJillDownie,CurtinUniversityAustralia

With

LouiseStarkey,VictoriaUniversityofWellington,NewZealandJasonZagami,GriffithUniversity,Australia

StefaniaBocconi,NationalResearchCouncilofItaly,ItalyJohnDewarWilson,Australia

JoyceMalyn-Smith,EducationDevelopmentCenter,USASandraElliott,Brightbytes,USA

Introduction

Prior to the Fifth International Summit on ICT in Education (EDUsummIT, 2017)whichwas held in Borovets, Bulgaria, members of the Thematic Working Group (TWG) 7engaged in a series of preparatory activities that included collecting, sharing andanalysingabroadrangeofpolicyapproaches.Inadigitalage,thereisaneedtore-thinklearningandidentifysuccessfulstrategiesandframeworkconditionsthathelpeducationpoliciestounfoldandhelppeoplemakeuseoftheminpractice.EmergentthemesforICT-related policies were discussed, and the interfaces, boundaries and overlaps ofresearch,policiesandeducationalpracticeswereexamined.

In the context of the increasing relevance of information and communicationtechnologies (ICT) and the global transition towards an information and knowledgesociety, school systems and higher education have been facing increasing challengesinvolved in preparing students for successful participation in the digital age. In manycountries,thisisleadingtomanifoldeffortsandchangesinnationalpoliciestowardsICTintegration.During the Summit, TWG7 discussed the issues and challenges in the design,implementation, and evaluation of national policy experiences for the digital age. Keychallengeswereidentifiedanddiscussedalongwithissuesthatpolicymakersatalllevelscommonly face. Based on this discussion a framework was developed that identifiedbarriers and limitations alongwith criteria for judging successful implementation, at atimeofdigitaldisruption.Thegroupbrieflysummedupmajorchallengesandidentifiedmajorstrategiesandsolutions/tacticsthatcouldbeappliedtosolvethesechallenges.


The group articulated several assumptions during the discussion, which included forexample, the need to involve all stakeholder groups to build awareness of theopportunitiesfornewpolicyprocessesthat involvetechnology.Weenvisionedtheuseof advanced analytics, alongside research and expert knowledge, as well as historicaldevelopmentgarneredfromnationalexperiencesandliterature.Muchofourdiscussionmadetheassumptionthatnationshaveunderstoodtheneedforequitableaccess(evenifthereisstilla longwaytogotoachieveit),thattheneedforprovisionandaccessisfundamentalandthateducationshouldbeavailabletoall, inalignmentwithUNESCO’sSDG4.Thegroupassumed that thepurposeofeducation technologypolicy is tohelpleadnationstowardtheirdigitalfuture.Weunderstandthatpolicymayneverbeaheadofinnovationatthegrassrootsandthatbothtop-downandbottom-upprocesseshaveto be engaged and aligned. We acknowledge that there is a developmental path ofnationalpolicy fromsimpleuseoftechnology, toacapacitytomodify technologies forvarious purposes, and ultimately to create new knowledge, processes and thingswithadvancedtechnologiestogenerateimpactandoutcomes.Theframeworkclassifiedchallengesintofourcategories:Creating ‘futureready’policyvisions, achieving systemicperspectives, promoting commitment to ‘policy learning’,

and developing and implementing policy processes. Any new policy has systemicimplications for educating students; these four factors combined can form a solidinfrastructurethatmayhelpadopteffectivepoliciesandpracticesthatsupportteachingandlearninginthedigitalage.

KeyChallengesforNationalPolicyDevelopment


CHALLENGEA:CREATINGFUTUREREADYPOLICYVISIONS

1. Interdisciplinary nature of real problems; 2. Changing and poorly understoodstandards fordigital literacyandcomputer science learning;3.Policyalignment to the‘digital age’ vision; 4.Need for ICT policy andnational vision for education; 5. Fit andvalidity of practice and policy; 6. Disruption of educational technologies andacknowledgementofhypecycles;and7.‘Shelflife’ofpolicy.

CHALLENGEB:ACHIEVINGSYSTEMICPERSPECTIVES

1. Adopt and maintain a systemic perspective; 2. Policy development resourcing; 3.Policy ‘fit’with localneeds;4. ‘Over control’ versus ‘under-control’ofpolicy;5. Short-term political focus for policymakers; 6. Primacy of contextual perspectives inimplementation,with a. Stakeholder understanding of systemic processes and visions;and b. Long-term industry focus that is not aligned to the political cycles; and 7.Creativityversuscompliance.

CHALLENGEC:PROMOTINGCOMMITMENTTO‘POLICYLEARNING’

1. Scopeofpolicy–applies todifferent levelsof theecosystem, frompolicy-maker topractitioner; 2. Relationship between government and industry, communication withstakeholders, connects to systems and renewal not aligned; 3. Alignment of policy tofunding is challenging resulting in ‘so what’, implementation; 4. Qualifications andprofessionaldevelopmentofteachersneedtobeconsidered;5.Disconnectbetweenthepolicy-writerandimplementationbythepolicy-maker;and6.Interpretationofdifferentpolicies–‘whatdowemeanbypolicy’.

CHALLENGED:DEVELOPINGANDIMPLEMENTINGPOLICYPROCESSES

1.Policydevelopedinisolationofothersectors,needtobemorestrategic–education,economicdevelopment,politics;2.Measurementofindicatorsofsuccessareoftennotagreedtoorunderstoodateverylevel;3.Usingbigdatatogatherevidenceisrelativelynew and underdeveloped; 4. Showing the efficacy of policies needs improving; oftenpolicies are made and then not examined, critiqued, or reviewed; 5. Research thatinformspolicy is important. There is aneed forefficacyof research, in relation to thecontext;6.LackofresearchevidenceonICTandcomputerscienceofhigherorderskillsprogression, 21st century skills progression, ‘policy on intuition’; 7. Lag time in policyprocessisevident,whichleadstobrittlenessofthepolicydevelopmentprocess;8.ThereisanopportunitytousedataandICTtoolstodrivepolicy;9.Thereisalsoopportunitytostrategicallyuseofsocialmediaininfluencingdevelopingpolicy.

RecommendationsandStrategiesforAddressingChallenges

A.STRATEGIESFORCREATINGFUTUREREADYPOLICYVISIONSDevelop future ready policy visions aligned with global development goals andcontextualized within communities using technology to facilitate and democratise theprocess.

1.Ensurepolicyiscontextualisedwithincommunitybythepeoplewithknowledgeofthecapabilitiesofthepeople,theresourcesandcontext impactedbythepolicy;2.Situatevisions within Sustainable Development Goals by understanding the future of theeconomic, political, environmental and social potential; 3. Incorporate the future of


technologies, such as artificial intelligence (AI), and the potential impact on lifelonglearning and working/not working; 4. Utilise computational power as a partner inlearning; 5. Recognize that the policy development process itself will be impacted bytechnology;and6.Democratisepolicydevelopmentfacilitatedbytechnology.

B.STRATEGIESFORACHIEVINGSYSTEMICPERSPECTIVES

Usereal-timedatasystemstomonitorandevaluateeducationalprocessesandoutcomesthroughabalanceofvaluedindicatorsindynamicsystemsmodels.1.Developdynamicsystemsmodels(macro,meso,micro)thatexpressacomprehensiveframeworkofresources,relationships,stakeholders,contextsandinteractionwithothersystems; 2. Develop a balance of agreed targeted indicators, through an open-endedprocess,toinvitecreativeimplementationandevaluativeprocesses;3.Tracktheflowofinformation and resources (relationships)within actors and systemsover time, and tomonitorandevaluate;and4.Implementacontinuousimprovementprocessusingnearreal-timedatathatmonitorstheeffectivenessoftheindicatorsandprovidesinformationabouttheimpactonthesystem.

C.STRATEGIESFORPROMOTINGCOMMITMENTTOPOLICYLEARNING

Developindividualandorganizationalcapacitytodevelop,contextualize,implementandlearnfrompolicyexperiencesandactionplansbasedontransparentdatasharing.1. Promote awareness of the policy system in the digital age and development ofknowledge and skills needed to participate; 2. Embed the continuous learning anddevelopment of all stakeholders in daily practices; 3. Develop the individual andorganisationalcapacitytocontextualisepolicytocreatelocalmeaningandsensitivities;4.Supportindividualandorganisationalactionplansbasedontransparentdatasharing;and 5. Develop policy that engages with those responsible for policy implementation(student,teacher,parent,school).

D.STRATEGIESFORDEVELOPINGANDIMPLEMENTINGPOLICYPROCESSES

Strategicallyusenewtechnologiesandnewwaysofworking thatengagestakeholdersincluding computational support systems to create insights for action and addressinequalities.1.Strategicallyusenewtechnologiesandwaysofworkingthatengagestakeholders inthe development, implementation and evaluation of policy processes; 2. Critique theprocesses involved in the development of policy and the inequalities in the powerrelationshipsamongst stakeholders in theeducationsystem;3.Useanalytics tocreateinsights for action to inform policy development; 4. Ensure transparent, public anddefensible policies; and 5. Accept that computational decision support systems mayneedtobeincludedasstakeholdersintheprocess,asthecomplexityandopaquenessofthesesystemsincreases.


ActionPlan

The group plans to continue working together to develop a white paper andpublications. The dissemination plan includes seeking critique through academic andpolicynetworkssuchasAMFIE,EducationWorldForum,conferencepresentationsandUNESCONationalCommissions.ConclusionNational education policy planning is an important tool for realising the potential ofdigitaltechnologiesforachievingsustainabledevelopmentgoalsbypromoting learningin a digital age of all contributors to education systems - students, and their parents,teachers, teacher educators, educational managers and policy makers at all levels.Existingprocessesfacearangeofchallengesinaworldofdigitaldisruptionanddynamictechnology and educational environments. The model of national policy planningarticulated by TWG 7 harnesses digital technologies to enhance the policy planningprocess,andisofferedasastartingpointforvalidation,refinementanddevelopmentofsuchprocessesforuniquenational,regional,educationalcontexts.



Upbringinginadigitalworld:Opportunitiesandpossibilities

SummaryReport

AlonaForkosh-Baruch,TelAvivUniversity,Israel

OlaErstad,UniversityofOslo,NorwayVadimGrinshkun,MoscowCityUniversity,RussianFederationSergeyGrigoryev,MoscowCityUniversity,RussianFederation

AlexanderKhoroshilov,RussianFederationEugeniaKovatcheva,ULSIT,Bulgaria

JasmineAmor,CambodiaFoundationforHigherEducation

Background

Upbringing is a term which has evolved tremendously in the last few decades. Thetraditionaldefinitionisquitenarrow,includingmostlythefamilyperspective,e.g.,“theway in which you are treated and educated when young, especially by your parents,especially in relation to the effect that this has on how you behave andmakemoraldecisions”(Cambridgedictionary),or“thetreatmentandinstructionreceivedbyachildfromitsparentsthroughoutitschildhood”(Encyclopedia.com).Awiderdefinitioncanbefoundaswell,e.g.,“thecareandtrainingofyoungchildrenoraparticulartypeofsuchcareandtraining”(Dictionary.com).Whendiscussingthetermupbringing,theconceptsthat come to mind range from bringing up, rearing, raising and breeding, to caring,fosteringand tending.Additionalconceptsmay include facilitating tolerance (Grigorev,Grinshkun,&Lvova,2014)andinvolvedevelopingmedialiteracyskillsandcompetencies(Livingstone, 2004) or digital literacies in general (Sefton-Green, Marsh, Erstad, &Flewitt,2016).

Challengesofupbringinginadigitalworldareinfluencedbysocialandculturalchangesworldwidethatrequireustorethinkintergenerationalandinterculturalissueslinkedtoupbringing.Internationalprocessesofglobalizationinseveraldomains,accompaniedbytechnologicaladvancements, transformour livesanddemeanor inallaspects,whetherat home or in educational institutions. Technological developments inflict newchallenges,necessitatingchangesinthewaysinwhichwetransferourculturalheritagetofuturegenerations.Thishasspecialimpactonthelivesoffuturegenerations,insomewayswecannotevenimagine,asportrayedinapapersummarizingdiscussionsonthistopic(Voogt,Erstad,Dede,&Mishra,2013).

Thesedevelopments raiseyetanother issue,namely,what is thepurposeof schooling(e.g., better grades, to educate the young generation, to prepare youngsters for their


future), particularly with the growing role of serendipitous and ubiquitous learningbeyond school (Kaufman, 2013). There is also a growing need of creativity andinnovativenessinpreparationoffutureworkingforceforjobsthatdidnotexistpriortotheICTera.Digitaltechnologyistransformingeducationrapidly,towardse-learningandmobile learning in ways that question traditional schooling, as opposed to a lifelonglearningparadigm,whichrequiresviewingeducationasacontinuousandbroadprocess.Digital literacy, collaboration, communication, problem solving, critical thinking anddigital citizenship are examples of essential components in the upbringing of futuregenerationsinthedigitalera(Voogtetal.,2013).Yetthepurposeofmanyschoolsmaynottrulyreflectbestlearningpracticesforthesegenerations;hencetheconceptof21stcenturyskills,aimingbetterandrelevanteducation(Kaufman,2013).

Hence,thekeychallengesforthistheme,basedontheliteraturereviewandthegroupdiscussion,arethefollowing:

1. Ecological challenge: awareness of family, community and peers of newopportunitiesandrisksofupbringinginadigitalworld.

2. Rethinking intergenerational and intercultural dynamics of family andeducationalinstituteslinkedtoupbringing.

3. Upbringing in a technological world as a continuum: developing norms andconventions,andimplicationsforeducation.

4. Upbringing digital citizens as informed adults, experiencing well-being andsecurity.

Challengesofupbringinginadigitalworld

Challenge 1: Ecological challenge: awareness of family, community and peers of newopportunitiesandrisksofupbringinginadigitalworld

Thedigitalworlddefinesanewmodelofinteractionbetweenachild,his/herfamilyandrelatives,friends,schoolsandteachers,andtheenvironment.Eachoftheserelationshipsmust be examined and studied, thereby identifying the essential features relevant toupbringing in the digital era. Of particular importance is the curation of theseinteractionsinordertoregulatetheinformationflow.

The impact of the digital world is defined by new possibilities, hardware (e.g.,computers, robots, sensors andactuators, smart environment components, and smarttechnical devices) and software. Software products are classified according to thefunctional principle: social networking, communication, interaction with theenvironment,bigdata,etc.

The main task for this challenge is to ensure the advantages of opportunities in thedigitalera,e.g.connectivity,awareness,andtobeabletocontrolthenegativeimpactofthe digital environment through joint endeavors that include all stakeholders, e.g.,parents,schoolsandthecommunityasawhole.Furthermore,childrenshouldbetaughtto formulate criteria for determining the usefulness of a given technologyindependently.The learningprocess inthedigitalerashould includecultural traditionsand diversity, thereby acknowledging the influence and traditions of the community,alongsideglobaltrends,involvingthecommunityatlarge.Forthis,itisrecommendedtocreate an online environment for involvement of parents and families. Formation ofalternative communities forparentsandchildrenmayestablish collaborationbetween


all involved in upbringing, e.g., facilitation and implementation of joint educationalprojects.

Challenge 2: Rethinking intergenerational and intercultural dynamics of family andeducationalinstituteslinkedtoupbringing

In today'sworld, in addition to interpersonaldifferences in communication,behaviourand interaction of members of different generations and cultures, there are alsocommonalities as a result of digital media penetrating our lives. New points ofintersection between the elderly and young people, as well as people with differentculturaltraditions,arerelatedtodigitaltechnologies.

People nowadays have the opportunity to access general information, communicatebetweencontinents,workusingcommontechnologies,exchangenegativeandpositivelife situationsor carryout global joint activities. Electronic translators allowpeople toovercomelanguagebarriers.Thisnewdigitalworldposesnewnormsofbehaviourandcommunication,anewlanguageandnewmodesofinteraction,aswellasnewsecuritythreats.Modernupbringingprocessesstilldonotfullyconsiderthepractical,socialandpsychologicalimplicationsofalltheseforupbringinginthedigitalage.

This challenge addresses the need to better understand intergenerational andinterculturalgaps,viaextensiveresearchandvisibilityonthewaysinwhichtherequiredcompetenciesareachieved.Hence, theglobal societyshouldencourage ICTusage inaubiquitous and extensivemanner, therebymoving towards stability and competency,i.e., technology as an integral component in everyday life and an extensionof humancapabilities.Inordertoachievethis,thereisaneedtoconstructresourcesfordifferentcultures and generations, with special attention to language and behaviors in socialmedia. Electronic intercultural communication and translation systems should bedeveloped,broadeningthepossibilitiestoconnectworldwide.Thismaybesupportedbycommoninterculturalandgenerationalactivitiesviacommonprojects,developedeitherbygovernmentagenciesorNGOs,orbytheprivatesector.Thiswillallowthecollectionof data worldwide, supplying international global open databases with examples ofpositiveandnegativehumanbehavior–asmeansofbestpractices forupbringingandeducation(formalandinformal).

Challenge3:Upbringinginatechnologicalworldasacontinuum:developingnormsandconventions,andimplicationsforeducation

The technological era allows continuous lifelong learning, beyond formal mandatoryeducation; this is especially relevant in today’s era of constant change and growth ofinformationexponentially. Hence,upbringing in this context requires considerationof“thebigpicture”,whichmeans:creatingacontinuousmannerinwhichupbringingisnotdefined by certain ages or groupswithin the population, but rather a comprehensiveendeavour,encompassingallagesandsub-populations.Also,upbringinginthissenseisnotnecessarilyapedagogical issue - it isanongoingsocial,emotional,moral, cultural,vocationalandbehaviouralundertaking.

However, in spite of this comprehensive challenge, there is a lack of research on thedevelopmentofdigitalcultureasacontinuum,globallyand locally;therefore,sporadicattemptstoconstructcontinuousinitiativesofdevelopmentofnormsacrossages,e.g.,senior citizens telling their life stories toyoungsters,while theseattempt to teach theformer ICT skills, are usually not evidence based. Possible initiatives for tackling this


challenge, which should also be further researched, may include development ofeducationalprojectswithoutbordersorboundariesusingICT-forallages.Thismaybeachievedbycontinuityindevelopmentofguidelinesfordigitalcompetenciesandculturethroughouta lifespan. Itmayserveanothertarget,ofpreservingconnectionsbetweengenerations.

Connection between generations in a continuous manner may allow observation ofbehaviours throughout different stages in life, from different points of view, therebyfacilitating desired content and behaviour and reducing undesirable content andbehaviour. By this, as well as by promoting visibility of communication via advanceddigitaltechnology,rulesofcommunicationinthedigitalspheremaybeestablished.Inaneraofgrowingpersonalization,theawarenessofthe individualtodifferentcontexts incyber-space is vital to his or her well-being; therefore, assistance throughout one’slifespan in continuous utilization of digital technologies that connect and even createenmeshmentbetweenthedigitalandthevirtualisimperative.

TheSELFIE(self-assessmenttoolfordigitallycapableschool)EUprojectisanexampleofimplication of these when referring to the education system. This is a reliable andvalidated self-assessment tool developed to assist schools in their utilization of digitaltechnologies in learning and in their strive for developing digital competence. This isachieved by an annual reflection of each school on its current uptake of digitaltechnologies for innovativeandeffective learningandondesired improvement for theupcoming year. This self-assessment process is fully owned by the school,whichmaydecideifandwithwhomtoshareitsresults.Thisisinlinewiththerecommendationforindividualchildrentoindependentlyformulatecriteriatodeterminetheusefulnessofagiven technology - only herewe refer to the institutional level, as ameans to ensurecontinuity.

Challenge4:Upbringingdigitalcitizensas informedadults,experiencingwell-beingandsecurity

Thetermdigitalcitizenshipencompassesabroadrangeofactivitiesandgoals,includingthe ability to navigate within continuously expanding networks of information, toconnectwith communities, to engage inonline andphysical civic activities, to explorenewpossibilitiesforsharedlocalandglobalinitiatives,andtoexaminenewideasbeyondtraditional boundaries. The continuously expanding infospace offers a new mode ofcitizenship,withadditionalandpossiblynovelperspectivesandresponsibilities thatgobeyondthe localandnationalandrequiremoreglobalawareness,critical thinkingandbehaviour,andevenwillingnesstochallengeideasandvalues.

Themainfocusofthischallengeistwofold:topromoterespectfulbehaviouronlineandto encourage online civic engagement. This requires several initiatives within thecommunity at large, not only in schools, as a means for ensuring best upbringing offuture citizens that exhibit greater compassion and awareness. Of course, the firstnecessarystepwouldbetoeducatetheentirecommunityaboutbestusesoftechnologyfor the benefit of society, and strategies to identify malicious activities online.Appropriate technology usage and awareness of instances such as plagiarism, digitalmarketingandpropercommunicationrequiredigitalcompetenciesaswellasmoralandethical values, and may require signing a pledge for better behaviour online.Notwithstanding, communities shouldpromote critical thinking,which in turn requiresunderstandingthedigitalculture,e.g.,fakenews.


Parents should undergo programs themselves that raise awareness to issues such asaddiction, exploitation online etc., and should explore techniques that focus on theirfamilies’well-being.Onewayofdoingsoistocreateabankofbestpracticesfordigitalcitizenship, as a means of educating young generations for enhanced awareness toonline behaviors, e.g., distributionof private information, identifying opportunities viadigital media. Parents themselves need to gain better insights on the implications oftheir own behavior online, e.g., online documentation of lives of their children frombirth; this requires educating families altogether. Ethical issues – privacy, normativeexpressions (e.g., language, visual), documentation issues – all these should not beoverlooked, and should be better defined. Communities altogether should attainenhanced control of content, as a means to promote informed decision-making ofindividuals.

Recommendationstopolicymakers,researchersandpractitioners

Therecommendationsherewithapplytoeachofthechallengesseparately,buttheyareintertwined and interrelated. Hence, we recommend joint top-down and bottom-upinitiatives,asreflectedinourproposedsolutions.

1.Ecologicalchallenge:awarenessoffamily,communityandpeersofnewopportunitiesandrisksofupbringinginadigitalworld

Policymakers

- Regulations(recommendations)forfamilies.- Promotepoliciesforinvolvementwithinfamiliesandwithinthecommunity.- Allocationoffundingforresearch.- Holistic,interconnectednesspolicy,basedonfindingsfromstudies.- Constructing alternative (physical and virtual) environments for community,interconnectednessandforinteractingwithtechnology.

Researchers

- Effectivenessofdiversetechnologiesinalternativecommunitystructures.- Developing – based on research – of guidelines for ecological awareness to digitalchallenges.

- Researchonthebenefitsofinterconnectednessandholisticapproaches.

Practitioners

- Raisingawarenessofopportunitiesandrisksofupbringinginthedigitalage.- Promotingself-assessmenttools.- Facilitatingcommunityevents.- Implementing behavioural norms and conventions with technology (e.g. robots, AIentities).

- Collaborationbetweenparents,teachersandcommunitymembersatlarge.

2. Rethinking intergenerational and intercultural dynamics of family and educationalinstituteslinkedtoupbringing


Policymakers

- Constructing environments for collaboration on inter-generational and inter-culturalprojects.

- Regulations for allowing utilization of technologies to support intergenerational andinterculturalinitiatives(e.g.,pedagogical,social).

- Givingavoiceregardinginter-generationalissuestotheyounggeneration.- Giving a voice regarding inter-cultural issues to diverse groups within society (e.g.,minorities).

- Definewiseusageof technology for intergenerational and intercultural issues, basedonresearch.

Researchers

- Multi-disciplinary research on inter-generational and inter-cultural differences andcommonalities–makefindingspublic.

- Constructassessmenttoolsandassesscriteriaandusageof ICTfor inter-generationalandinter-culturalissuesrelatedtoupbringinginthedigitalage.

Practitioners

- Constructanduse internationalglobalopendatabaseswithexamplesofpositiveandnegativehumanbehaviour–asmeansofeducation(e.g.,bestpracticescenarios).

- Initiate common inter-cultural/generational activities – common projects (e.g.,collectingdataworldwide).

3. Upbringing in a technological world as a continuum: developing norms andconventions,andimplicationsforeducation

Policymakers

- Development of guidelines for digital competencies in cultural and interculturalcontexts.

- Allocate funding for initiatives that promote policies from K to 12 and for highereducation.

- Strengthenconnectionsandpartnershipswiththe industry(e.g., implementrobots ineducation,incommunitycenters).

Researchers

- Researchondevelopmentofdigitalcultureasacontinuum.- Researchonpsychological aspectsofupbringing ina technologicalworldacrossagesandeducationallevels.

Practitioners

- Initiatives for parents and educators that promote requirements and conventionsacrossages–lifelonglearningprogressiveapproach.

- Courses and workshops (physical and online) for parents, teachers, and communitymembersonusingICTcontinuouslythroughouttheupbringingprocess.


- Special attention in developing and implementing requirements and conventions forchildrenandyoungadultswithspecialneeds.

4.Upbringingdigitalcitizensasinformedadults,experiencingwell-beingandsecurity

Policymakers

- Research-basedrecommendationsonICTutilizationforinformeddecision-making- Initiate and fund digital citizenship programs and projects, e.g., digital marketing,properonlinecommunication.

Researchers

- Researchoncriticalthinkingasameansforinformeddecisionmaking.- Developresearch-basedmethodsonutilizationofdigitaltools.

Practitioners

- Raiseawarenessformediaconsumptionwithinthecommunity:fromyoungagetillageofretirement.

- EducatingParentsaboutpreservingtheirwell-beingandtheirfamilies'well-beinginanICTsaturatedenvironment.

Conclusions

To sum up, there is a need for promoting awareness of family, community and peerchallengesinaholistic-integrativemanner(asawholeecologicalsystem),forpromotingdigitalcitizenshipandnewopportunitiesandrisksofupbringinginadigitalworld.Asameansofdoingso,weneedtorethink intergenerationaland interculturaldynamicsoffamilyandeducationalinstituteslinkedtoupbringing,inacontinuousmanner.References

Grigorev, S.G., Grinshkun, V.V., & Lvova, O.V. (2014). Some aspects of educationinformatization in Russia concerning training future teachers. Bulletin of Peoples’FriendshipUniversityofRussia,3,14-18.

Kaufman,K.J.(2013).21waysto21stcenturyskills:whystudentsneedthemandideasforpracticalimplementation.KappaDeltaPiRecord,49(2),78-83.

Livingstone, S. (2004). Media literacy and the challenge of new information andcommunicationtechnologies.TheCommunicationReview,7(1),3-14.

Sefton-Green, J., Marsh, J., Erstad, O., & Flewitt, R. (2016). Establishing a researchagendaforthedigitalliteracypracticesofyoungchildren.AWhitePaperforCOSTActionIS1410.Retrievedfromhttp://digilitey.eu

Voogt,J.,Erstad,O.,Dede,C.,&Mishra,P.(2013).Challengestolearningandschoolingin the digital networked world of the 21st century. Journal of Computer AssistedLearning,29(5),403-413.



Supportingsustainabilityandscalabilityineducationaltechnologyinitiatives:Research

informedpractice

SummaryReport

DaleNiederhauser,WestVirginiaUniversity,USA

PunyaMishra,ArizonaStateUniversity,USADouglasAgyei,UniversityofCapeCoast,Ghana

MargaretCox,King’sCollegeLondon,UKSarahHoward,UniversityofWollongong,Australia

ThereseLaferriere,UniversitéLaval,CanadaLynneSchrum,NovaSoutheasternUniversity,USAJoTondeur,VrijeUniversiteitBrussel,Belgium

JokeVoogt,UniversiteitvanAmsterdam,TheNetherlands

Purpose

AimsoftheThematicWorkinggroup(TWG)9onSupportingSustainabilityandScalabilityinEducationalTechnologyInitiatives:ResearchInformedPracticewereto(a)developabetterunderstandingofwhatwemeanbysustainabilityandscalabilityinthecontextofeducationaltechnologyinitiatives;(b)establishafoundationforresearchapproachesthatwouldapplyinthesecontexts;(c)identifychallengesfacedinthiswork;and,finally(d)providekeyrecommendationstoresearchersandpolicymakersforfutureworkinthisarea.Thepurposeofthisdocumentistoinformpolicymakersofthechallengesrelatedtosustainingandscalingtechnologyinnovationineducation.Sincedigitaltechnologieschangeveryquickly,itisincumbentonresearcherstoprovideinsightsandstrategiestoenablerapidandnimblescalingofeffectivetechnologyuseininstructionalsettings,andtoidentifykeyfactorsthatsupportsustainingtheseeffectivepracticesovertime.Wetakeasgiventhattechnologyplays(andwillcontinuetoplay)animportantroleineducation.Thus,itisimperativethatwebetterunderstandhowtechnologicalinnovationsinschoolingcanbeimplementedinwaysthataresustainableandscalable.Inthesectionsbelowwebetterdefinetheideaofsustainabilityandscalability,providethreekeyfoundationalguidelinesandendwithasetofshorttermandlongtermchallengesandrecommendations.


Sustainability

Sustainabilityrelatestothedegreetowhichaninnovationimplementationcanbemaintainedovertime.Sustainabilityrequiresprojectdesignthatincorporatesco-design,partnerships,iterativeintervention—researchcycles,andattentiontocomplexrelationshipsamongopportunitiesandconstraintsintheintendedcontext(s).Thegoalofthisworkistoensurethateducationalinnovationswithtechnologyendurewithintheseconstantlyevolvingcontext(s);anddrawonactivestakeholderownershipbystudents,parents,teachers,administrators,researchersandpolicymakers.

Scalability

Scalabilityaddressesapplicationofinnovationimplementationstonewcontextsanddifferentlevelsineducationalsystems.Scalabilityoftechnologyinnovationcanbedefinedbytwodimensions:horizontal(acrosscontexts)andvertical(movingbetweenlevelsofaneducationalsystem).Designingforscalabilityneedstoconsiderimplicationsofimplementinginnovationsthataffordverticaland/orhorizontaladaptation,adoption,replicationandreinventionofdigitaltechnologyuseinteachingandlearningacrosseducationalsystems.Designingforscalabilityrequiresconsiderationof,andworkin,theculturalcontexttolegitimizebothhorizontalandverticalscalingoftechnologyintegration.Note:SeeAppendixAforavisualrepresentationofourframeworkforthinkingaboutsustainabilityandscalabilityofinnovativepractices.

Threekeyguidelines

Technologicalinnovationimplementationisdeeplycontextual;withimplementationofagiveninnovationplayingoutdifferentlyindifferentcontextsandacrossmultipleiterationswithinthecontext.Thisimpliesthatinnovationimplementationchangeswhenextendedacrossand/orwithincontexts.Therefore,top-downapproachesthatseekfidelityofinnovationimplementationacrosssituationsarenotconsistentwithwhatweknowaboutinnovationdiffusion.Whatisneededisaperspectivethatidentifiesthecoreelementsofaninnovationwhilerespectingtheadaptationinherentinimplementationovertimeandacrosscontexts.Thus:

1. Thereisacleartensionbetweenadaptingandpromotingfidelityofinnovationimplementationacrosscontexts.

Thereasonforstronginfluenceofcontextisthehighlevelofvariabilitybetweeneducationalsystemsandstructures.Further,itisclearthatthedeepestunderstandingofagiveneducationalcontextisheldbykeystakeholderswhoareoperatingatalocallevel.Attheschoollevelthiswouldbeschoolleaders,principals,teachersandstudents;atthedistrictbyadministratorslikesuperintendentsandcurriculumdirectors;andatthegovernmentlevelbypolicymakerslikelegislatorsandtheireducationadvisors.Wealsoneedtoattendtoandincludeindustrypartners.Eachofthesestakeholdersmayhavedifferent,butlegitimate,perspectivesonissuesrelatingtotechnologyinnovation.Thislocal,situatedknowledgemustbehonouredandrepresentedwhenmovingforwardwithdesigning,implementingandresearchingtechnologyintegrationefforts.Thus:


2. Weneedstrongstakeholderandresearcherpartnerships.

Whenwedevelopsuchpartnerships,whichbringstakeholdersandresearcherstogethertocollectivelystudyandunderstandeducationalinnovationsandtheirimpact,wewillbeableto:

3. Developevidence-drivenapproachestoscalableandsustainableinnovationdesign.

ChallengesandRecommendations

Giventhisbroadercontextandguidelines,TWG9membersworkedtogethertoidentifyaseriesofchallengesandprovideshort-andlong-termrecommendations.Challenge1:EstablishproductivepartnershipsamongallstakeholderstoadvancecapacitybuildingforICTuseinschools.ShortTermRecommendations

● Co-designresearchwithrealcommitmentandownershipfromstakeholdersatalllevels.

● Developandmodelstrategiesandproceduresfordevelopingproductivepartnerships.

LongTermRecommendations

● Developfeedbackloopstoinformtheprocessandmaintaininnovations.● Helpstakeholdersatalllevelsbetterunderstandthevalueofresearch(this

requiresbuildingactivecommunicationstrategiesintotheprocess).● Developiterativecyclesofresearchthatincludemultiplestakeholdersand

attentiontocontext.Challenge2:Identifyresearchapproachesthataresustainableandscalableand/orthatsupportsustainabilityandscalability.ShortTermRecommendations

● Provideopportunitiesandsupportforscholarstosynthesizeresearchthataddresstechnologyintegrationeffortsthathavebeensuccessfullyscaledandsustained.

● Provideopportunitiesandsupportforscholarstodevelopliteraturereviewacrossmultiplestudiesthathavebeensuccessfullyscaledandsustainedtoidentifypatternsandprinciples.

LongTermRecommendation

● Buildacomprehensivebodyofknowledgescalableandsustainableresearchdesignsandfindingstoinformdecision-makingandpolicy.


● Buildonandadapttechnologyintegrationandresearchdesignsthathavesuccessfullyscaledandsustained.

Challenge3:Scaletechnologyintegrationbasedonimpactfoundinresearchliteratureratherthanisolatedpolitically-drivenpolicyinitiatives.ShortTermRecommendations

● Useresearchtodeconstructfadsandcommunicateappropriateresearchfindingstostakeholders.

● Developateamthatcanrespondquicklytopolicyinitiativesonthebasisofaccumulatedresearchresults.

LongTermRecommendation

● Activelyinvolvepolicymakersandindustrypartnersearlyandthroughouttheprocess.

AppendixA

SeeingInnovation,ScalabilityandSustainability

Innovationsgetricher,morenuanced,complexastheybecomeembeddedincontextsovertime.Atthesametime,asinnovationsspreadintoothercontexts,mutateandtheychangetomeetnewneedsandcontextualdemands.Howdowethinkaboutscalabilityandsustainabilityofeducationalinnovations,inparticularwithrespecttofidelityandvariability?

Figure1.SustainabilityofaninnovationshowinghowitgetsricherandnuancedovertimeTheseshiftsandchangesareillustratedabove(seeFigure1).Onthehorizontal,wehavetime(lefttoright)wheretheinnovationbecomesricherandmoreembeddedinaspecificcontext.Thisrepresentssustainability,indicatinggreaterembeddednessofaninnovationinacontextthatcontinuestogrowandsustainovertime.Theverticalaxisappearswhenwelooktotheideaofscalability,namelywhentheinnovationspreadsintoothercontexts.


Figure2.Theinnovationspreadsintoanewcontext–andgrowsandmutatesovertime.ScalabilityisrepresentedinFigure2,inaverticalshift.Wecanseetheoriginalinnovationonthefarleft,inthebottomrow.Thesecondrowillustratesitsapplicationinanewcontext.Changes,showninchangesintheshapeoftheinnovation,resultfromnewissuesandpossibilitiesofthenewcontext.Theinnovationinthesecondcontext,asitalsobecomessustainableovertime,becomesmoreembeddedandrich.Eachtimetheinnovationisappliedinanewcontext,theprocessrepeats,asrepresentedinFigure3.Animportantconsiderationofscalingandsustaining

Figure3.Acompleteimageoftheprocessofsustainabilityandscalability.


innovationsovertimeisthetensionbetweenfidelitytotheinnovationandadaptationinnewcontexts–howdoestheinnovationneedtochangeandhowdowemakethosedecisions?Researchshowsthatinnovationscannotbesimplytransferredandtranslatedandimposedontonewcontexts.Thus,replicabilityofaninnovationbecomeshardertoachieveandfidelityneedstogotomoreabstractelementsthatdeterminetheessentialelementsoftheinnovation.Figure3demonstratesthisprocessofgrowthandchange–andprovidesawaytothinkaboutsustainabilityandscalabilitytogether.However,todothis,itisnecessarytoconsiderhowprogramsandinitiativesareabletochangeandinnovate.Werecommendthinkingabouttheseasresponsivetonewcontextsandinnovatinginresponsetoneedsofnewenvironments.


Appendix1:EDUsummIT2017Committees

SteeringCommitteeJoke Voogt, Universiteit van Amsterdam, The Netherlands, Chair EDUsummIT andProgramCo-Chair,Founder RoumenNikolov,UniversityofLibraryStudiesandinformationTechnologies,Bulgaria,SummitCo-Chair PetraFisser,NationalInstituteforCurriculumDevelopment,TheNetherlands,SummitCo-ChairKwok-WingLai,UniversityofOtago,NewZealand,ProgramCo-Chair MargaretCox,King’sCollegeLondon,UK,Founder DavidGibson,CurtinUniversity,AustraliaGeraldKnezek,UniversityofNorthTexas,USA,Founder

OrganisingCommitteeStoyanDenchev,UniversityofLibraryStudiesandinformationTechnologies,BulgariaOlegKonstantinov,UniversityofLibraryStudiesandinformationTechnologies,BulgariaEugeniaKovatcheva,UniversityofLibraryStudiesandinformationTechnologies,BulgariaIrmaMunters,NationalInstituteforCurriculumDevelopment,TheNetherlandsTaniaTodorova,UniversityofLibraryStudiesandinformationTechnologies,Bulgaria


Appendix2:EDUsummIT2017Participants

TWG1MembersattendingEDUsummITDeirdreButler,DublinCityUniversity,Ireland(Leader)YousraChtouki,AlAkhawaynUniversity,MoroccoMargaretLeahy,DublinCityUniversity,Ireland(Leader)KandaMoore,KasetsartUniversity,ThailandRoumenNikolov,ULSIT,BulgariaAmandaSherman,CambodiaFoundationforHigherEducationBarbaraSherman,CambodiaFoundationforHigherEducationPeterTwinning,TheOpenUniversity,UK(Leader)TeemuValtonen,UniversityofEasternFinland,FinlandMembersnotattendingEDUsummITBenAkoh,UlinkInsights,CanadaSaraFarshadnia,UniversityofCanterbury,NewZealandCarlosMinianoPascual,AddisAbabaScienceandTechnologyUniversity,EthiopiaLuciliaPerez,UniversityCasaGrande,Ecuador

TWG2MembersattendingEDUsummITHansvanBergen,HogeschoolUtrecht,TheNetherlandsFerialKhaddage,BalamandUniversity,LebanonKwok-WingLai,UniversityofOtago,NewZealand(Leader)CathyLewin,ManchesterMetropolitanUniversity,UK(Leader)JeanGabinNtebutse,UniversityofSherbrooke,CanadaHiroakiOgata,KyotoUniversity,JapanRogerSherman,SimmonsSchoolofSocialWork, USA DavidSmith,KaplanUniversity,USABarryQuinn,King’sCollegeLondon,UKMembernotattendingEDUsummITAminaCharania,TataTrusts&TataInstituteofSocialSciences,IndiaTWG3MembersattendingEDUsummITGhaiadaAlayyar,PublicAuthorityofAppliedEducationandTraining,KuwaitRowlandBaker,SantaCruzCountyOfficeofEducation,USARhondaChristensen,UniversityofNorthTexas,USA(Leader)PaulD’Souza,MumbaiUniversityAffiliatedEducationColleges,IndiaBasvanEekhout,IndependentConsultant,TheNetherlandsKoosEichhorn,Lucasonderwijs,TheNetherlands(Leader)


GeraldKnezek,UniversityofNorthTexas,USASheshaKantaPangeni,KathmanduUniversityofEducation,NepalDominikPetko,PädagogischeHochschuleSchweiz,SwitzerlandSarahPrestridge,GriffithUniversity,AustraliaHenkSligte,KohnstammInstituteUniversityofAmsterdam,TheNetherlandsAlexanderUvarov,MoscowStatePedagogicalUniversity,RussianFederationTWG4MembersattendingEDUsummITLonAppleby,DurhamCollege,CanadaMiriamJudge,DublinCityUniversity,IrelandDonPassey,LancasterUniversity,UK(Leader)ToshinoriSaito,SeisaUniversity,JapanMiriShonfeld,KibbutzimCollegeofEducation,Israel(Leader)AnnekeSmits,WindesheimUniversity,TheNetherlandsMembersnotattendingEDUsummITShahrazadKablan,LoudounCountyPublicSchools,USATWG5MembersattendingEDUsummITBentB.Andresen,AarhusUniversity,DenmarkCharoulaAngeli,UniversityofCyprus,CyprusAnaAmeliaCarvalho,UniversityofCoimbra,PortugalEvaDobozy,CurtinUniversity,AustraliaDjordjeM.Kadijevich,InstituteforEducationalResearch,SerbiaHansLaugesen,NationalUnionofUpperSecondaryTeachers,DenmarkMikePhillips,MonashUniversity,AustraliaDoreenPrasse,SchwyzUniversityofTeacherEducation,SwitzerlandAllardStrijker,NationalInstituteforCurriculumDevelopment,TheNetherlandsMaryWebb,King’sCollegeLondon,UK(Leader)MembernotattendingEDUsummITDirkIfenthaler,UniversityMannheim,Germany(Leader)


TWG6MembersattendingEDUsummITDormaBaker,PajaroValleyUnifiedSchoolDistrict,USASonaCeretkova,ConstantinethePhilosopherUniversityinNitra,SlovakiaMirkaČernochová,CzechRepublicMichaelDoyle,BulgariaMichaelHenderson,MonashUniversity,Australia(Leader)DanahHenriksen,ArizonaStateUniversity,USA(Leader)OlegKonstantinov,ULSIT,BulgariaEugeniaKovatcheva,ULSIT,BulgariaMedaGedaraPeiris,SriLankaEvgeniaSendova,BulgarianAcademyofScience,BulgariaElenaShoikova,ULSIT,BulgariaErkkoSointu,UniversityofEasternFinland,FinlandPaoloTosato,Ca'FoscariUniversityofVenice,ItalyRaymondTrippe,LucasOnderwijs,TheNetherlandsMembersnotattendingEDUsummITChristopherTienken,SetonHallUniversity,USAEdwinCreely,MonashUniversity,AustraliaTWG7MembersattendingEDUsummITStefaniaBocconi,NationalResearchCouncilofItaly,ItalyJillDownie,CurtinUniversityAustralia(Leader)SandraElliott,Brightbytes,USADavidGibson,CurtinUniversity,Australia(Leader)JoyceMalyn-Smith,EducationDevelopmentCenter,USALouiseStarkey,VictoriaUniversityofWellington,NewZealandJohnDewarWilson,AustraliaJasonZagami,GriffithUniversity,AustraliaTWG8MembersattendingEDUsummITJasmineAmor,CambodiaFoundationforHigherEducationOlaErstad,UniversityofOslo,Norway(Leader)AlonaForkosh-Baruch,TelAvivUniversity,Israel(Leader)VadimGrinshkun,MoscowCityUniversity,RussianFederationSergeyGrigoryev,MoscowCityUniversity,RussianFederationAlexanderKhoroshilov,RussianFederationEugeniaKovatcheva,ULSIT,Bulgaria


TWG9MembersattendingEDUsummITDouglasAgyei,UniversityofCapeCoast,GhanaMargaretCox,King’sCollegeLondon,UKSarahHoward,UniversityofWollongong,AustraliaThereseLaferriere,UniversitéLaval,CanadaPunyaMishra,ArizonaStateUniversity,USA(Leader)DaleNiederhauser,WestVirginiaUniversity,USA(Leader)LynneSchrum,NovaSoutheasternUniversity,USAJoTondeur,VrijeUniversiteitBrussel,BelgiumJokeVoogt,UniversiteitvanAmsterdam,TheNetherlands


Appendix3:EDUsummIT2017Programme

Sunday,17September6.30pmReception

Monday,18September8.30–9.00amRegistration

9.00–9.30amWelcomebyourhosts

9.30–10.00amTheEDUsummITVision:BackgroundandFuture,JokeVoogt&GeraldKnezek

10.00–10.30amMorningTeaBreak

10.30–12.00pmTWGBreakoutSession1–Whatarethekeychallenges?

12.00–1.00pmLunch

1.00–2.30pmTWGBreakoutSession2–Howtoresolvethechallenges?

2.30–3.00pmAfternoonTeaBreak

3.00–4.30pmTWGBreakoutSession3–Howtoresolvethechallenges?

4.30–5.30pmEDUsummIT2019

Tuesday,19September

9.00–10.30amTWGBreakoutSession4–Recommendationstopolicymakers,researchersand

practitioners

10.30–11.00amMorningTeaBreak

11.00–12.30pmCross-fertilisation,TWGLeadersrotate

12.30–1.30pmLunch

1.30–3.00pmTWGBreakoutSession5–PreparationforActionPlanandPolicy

Recommendations(posters)

3:00–3:30pmAfternoonTeaBreak

3.30–4.30pmPostersSession–ActionPlansandPolicyRecommendationspresentedbyTWGs

4.30–5.15pmPlenaryDiscussion

Wednesday,20September

8.30–10.30amWritingupTWGreport

10:30amClosingceremony

11:00am–6:00pmMonasteryvisit(optional)