EDUsummIT 2015 Summary Report · TECHNOLOGY ADVANCED QUALITY LEARNING FOR ALL EDUsummIT 2015...

EDUsummIT2015SummaryReport

EDUSummIT2015 Page|2

TECHNOLOGYADVANCEDQUALITYLEARNINGFORALL

EDUsummIT2015SummaryReportEditedbyKwok-WingLaiUniversityofOtagoCollegeofEducationNewZealandNovember2015AcknowledgementEDUsummIT2015isthankfultothesupportofitsleaders,participants,co-hostsUNESCOBangkokandCurtinUniversity,andsponsorBlackboard.TheeditorialassistanceofShelleyMorgan,UniversityofOtagoCollegeofEducation,isalsogratefullyacknowledged.


TableofContents

ASketchofEDUsummITinBangkok.............................................................5Kwok-WingLaiThematicWorkingGroup1:SmartPartnerships..........................................9NikiDavis,MargaretLeahy,CathyLewin,AminaCharania,andHasnizaNordin,withAveMejia,DavorOrlec,DeirdreButler,VanessaChang,BenDanielMotidyang,OlaErstad,andOlatzLopez-FernandezThematic Working Group 2: Advancing mobile learning in formal andinformalsettings..........................................................................................16FerialKhaddageandRowlandBaker,withKimFlintoff,WolfgangMuller,AukenTungatarova,BarryQuinn,ElliotSoloway,CathieNorris,ImmoKortelainen,LindaFang,YiddaMarcial,LucilaPerez,andDoloresZambrano

ThematicWorkingGroup3:Professionaldevelopmentforpolicymakers,schoolleadersandteachers.......................................................................22PeterAlbion,AlonaForkosh-Baruch,andJoTondeur,withTonyBrandenburg,PaulD’Souza,MartinLevins,LayChengTan,MunFieTsoi,NicosValanides,andJohnWilsonThematicWorkingGroup4:Addressinggapsandpromotingeducationalequity............................................................................................................29ThérèseLaferrière,DonPassey,ManalYazbak-AbuAhmad,JanetPrice,DianaGross,MiriShonfeld,PaulResta,MironBhowmik,andJonghwiPark

ThematicWorkingGroup5:Assessmentas,forandofLearning...............34MichaelSpector,DirkIfenthaler,DemetriosSampson,LanYang,EvodeMukama,AmaliWarusavitarana,KulariLokugeDona,KoosEichhorn,AndrewFluck,RonghuaiHuang,SusanBridges,JiingyanLu,YouqunRen,XiaoqingGui,ChristopherDeneen,andJonathanSanDiegoThematicWorkingGroup6:Creativityinatechnologyenhancedcurriculum....................................................................................................40PunyaMishra,PetraFisser,DanahHenriksen,andNicholasReynolds,withMiroslaveCernochova,JanetCochrane,SueCranmer,SachaDeVelle,MichaelHenderson,LeahIrving,EugeniaKovatcheva,andPaoloTosato


Thematic Working Group 7: Indicators of quality technology-enhancedteachingandlearning..................................................................................49NancyLaw,DaleNiederhauser,LindaShear,andRhondaChristensen,withEstherCare,DavidSmith,JonghwiPark,BentAndresen,HansvanBergen,DeirdreButler,AllanChristie,JillDownie,TaniaBradley,andLouiseStarkeyThematicWorkingGroup8:Digitalcitizenshipandcyberwellness...........56PaulResta,MarsaliHancock,MichaelSearson,JongwonSeo,CristianaMattosdeAssumpcao,AnthonyJones,VaibhavJadhav,LeelaPradhan,EthelValenzuela,CoreenFrias,PadoongArrayavinyoo,AzraNaseem,DoritOlenik-Shemesh,TaliHeiman,EvaDobozy,TerezaTrencheva,JoyceMalyn-Smith,DevashishDutta,HyunjeongLee,MelTan,andYuhyunParkThematicWorkingGroup9:Curriculum-AdvancingunderstandingoftherolesofCS/Informaticsinthecurriculum...................................................61MaryWebb,AndrewFluck,MargaretCox,CharoulaAngeli-Valanides,JoyceMalyn-Smith,JokeVoogt,andJasonZagami

Appendix1:EDUsummIT2015SteeringCommittee..................................71Appendix2:TWGParticipants.....................................................................72Appendix3:EDUsummIT2015Programme................................................76


ASketchofEDUsummITinBangkok

Kwok-WingLai,UniversityofOtagoAboutEDUsummITThisebookisacollectionofsummaryreportsofthethematicworkinggroups(TWGs)ofEDUsummIT2015. 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,EDUsummIThasbeenheldfourtimes,firstlyinthe Hague (2009), then Paris (2011), Washington D.C. (2013), and most recently, inBangkok (2015). Between 70 and 140 participants from six continents have attendedEDUsummITmeetings.WhileEDUsummITparticipantsmeetbiennially,thematicgroupsfocusing on pertinent research topics in ICT and education are formed prior toEDUsummIT to prepare discussion papers. These papers are further developed duringEDUsummIT. After each EDUsummIT, TWG findings are published in internationaljournalsandpresentedatmajorconferences.EDUsummITsareorganisedinassociationwith internationalandnationalorganisationsactivelysupportingtheuseofinformationtechnologyineducation.Theseorganisationsinclude the Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education (SITE), theInternational Society for Technology in Education (ISTE), Kennisnet (Netherlands), theInternationalFederationforInformationProcessing(IFIP)WorkingGroup3.3(Researchinto EducationalApplicationsof Information Technologies), theAssociationof TeacherEducators (ATE), the TeacherDevelopment andHigher EducationDivision atUNESCO,andUNESCOBangkok.

EDUsummIT2015EDUsummIT 2015 was co-hosted by UNESCO Bangkok (the Asia and Pacific regionalbureauofUNESCO)andCurtinUniversity,andsponsoredbyBlackboard.ThethemeofEDUsummIT2015,TechnologyAdvancedQualityLearningForAll,hadaspecialfocusonthe integration of digital technologies in education in Asia-Pacific countries. SeveralUNESCOBangkokICTspecialistsjoinedtheTWGsaspolicyadvisors.David Gibson (Curtin University) and Kwok-Wing Lai (University of Otago) co-chairedEDUsummIT2015,andasteeringcommittee(referAppendix1)wassetuptooverseeitsoperation.PlanningbeganinMay2014,withitsfirstmeetinghostedbytheUniversityofCanterbury, New Zealand. The secondmeetingwas a site visit in Bangkok, hosted byUNESCO Bangkok in October 2014. The third meeting was a TWG leaders’ meeting,which was held at the SITE conference in Las Vegas in March 2015. The planningcommitteecommunicatedregularlywithTWGleadersviaemailandvideo-conferencing.


A Google community was set up for leaders to discuss EDUsummIT business and awebsite (http://www.curtin.edu.au/edusummit/) was created to publicise EDUsummIT2015andarchiveitdocuments.Nine thematic working groups (TWG) were formed in the beginning of 2015 (referAppendix2foralistofparticipants).Thesegroupsincluded:TWG1:SmartpartnershipsTWG2:AdvancingmobilelearninginformalandinformalsettingsTWG3:Professionaldevelopmentforpolicymakers,schoolleadersandteachersTWG4:AddressinggapsandpromotingeducationalequityTWG5:Assessmentas,for,andoflearninginthe21stcenturyTWG6:CreativityinatechnologyenhancedcurriculumTWG7:Indicatorsofqualitytechnology-enhancedteachingandlearningTWG8:DigitalcitizenshipandcyberwellnessTWG9: Curriculum - advancing understanding of the roles of CS/Informatics in thecurriculumFocusingontheirrespectivethemes,theTWGsstartedresearchinganddevelopingtheirdiscussion and policy papers from February 2015. The TWGs were guided by thefollowingquestions:• Whyisthisthemeimportanttoeducationandlearning?• Whatarethekeyissuesandquestionstobeaddressed?• What are the research, policy, and practice challenges faced and what are your

recommendations to help researchers, practitioners, and policy makers to moveforward?

TheTWGswerealsoaskedto:• Conductasynthesisofrelevantresearchrelatedtothetheme’stopic.• Provide examples of innovative practices and if possible, include Asian-Pacific

examples.

TWGs used a variety of technologies (e.g., Google Docs and Sites) to support pre-Bangkok discussions.Drafts of the discussion andpolicy paperswere preparedbeforethe Summit. TWG leaders also prepared questions for discussions, with supportingmaterials(researcharticles,reports,websitelinks,etc.).Aministerial-levelforumonICTineducation(theAsiaPacificMinisterialForumofICTinEducation(AMFIE))wastobeheldimmediatelyafterEDUsummIT2015.TheTWGpolicypapers were to be distributed and used at the Forum. Due to unforeseeable reasonshowever, AMFIE had to be postponed until 2016, but the TWG policy briefs will bepublishedbyUNESCOBangkokanddistributedattheforthcomingAMFIE.FindingsfromTWGs7and8willalsobepresentedatAMFIE.


EDUsummITinBangkokClose to 90 researchers, policy makers, and educational practitioners attendedEDUsummIT 2015 in Bangkok (plus over 40 participants not able to attend). Theseparticipantscamefrom35countries.AllTWGleadersandsteeringcommitteemembersmet a day before the Summit, on September 13 (refer Appendix 3 for the fullprogramme).On themorning ofMonday September 14th, DrGwang-Jo Kim (Director,UNESCOBangkok) andProfessor JillDownie (DeputyVice-Chancellor Education,CurtinUniversity) welcomed EDUsummIT 2015 participants, and Dr Jonghwi Park (UNESCOBangkok),ProfessorJokeVoogt(UniversityofAmsterdam)andProfessorGeraldKnezek(UniversityofNorthTexas)deliveredthekeynoteaddresses.During the two full-day meeting, EDUsummIT 2015 participants engaged in intensediscussions of key issues and challenges related to TWG themes, and developedrecommendations andactionplans. Therewere five group sessions, lastingone andahalf hours each. An additional session was also held to provide “cross-fertilisation”betweengroups,withTWGleadersvisitingothergroupstosharetheirfindingsandelicitfeedback.AplenarysessionwasheldbeforeclosingwhenTWGleadersreportedgroupfindingstoallparticipants.TWGsummaryreportsInthefollowingTWGreports,eachgrouphassummarisedthebackgroundandcontextof its theme of study, the issues and challenges, recommendations they proposed toresearchers,policymakers andeducationalpractitioners, and theactionplan tomoveforward.AdominantthemethatemergedfromtherecommendationsoftheTWGsis,tobesuccessfulandeffectiveinintegratinginformationtechnologyineducation,teachersand educational practitioners need to be well-supported with teaching, learning, andassessment materials and tools, as well as professional learning and developmentopportunities.Theyalsoneedtounderstandthecomplexityofintegratingtechnologiesinteachingandlearning,whilenotlosingfocusonthelearnersandlearningoutcomes,acrossarangeofformalandinformallearningsituationsandcontexts.LookingaheadThepolicybriefspreparedbytheTWGswillbepublishedbyUNESCO(editedbyJonghwiParkandDavidGibson).ResearchpapersdevelopedbytheTWGswillalsobepublishedas a special issue in the Journal of Educational Technology & Society (edited by JokeVoogtandGeraldKnezek).ThenextEDUsummITwillbeheldinBorovets,Bulgaria,inSeptember2017.Itwillbeco-chairedbyPetraFisser(NetherlandsInstituteforCurriculumDevelopment)andRoumenNikolov (University of Library Studies and Information Technologies, Sofia). A steeringcommittee (JokeVoogt, chair,Margaret Cox,DavidGibson,GeraldKnezek, andKwok-WingLai)hasbeenformedtosupporttheco-chairs.Theplanningprocesswillbegin in2016.


TheEDUsummITknowledgebuildingcommunitycontinuesonin2017…ReferenceVoogt,J.,&Knezek,G.(Eds.).(2008).InternationalHandbookofInformationTechnologyinPrimaryandSecondaryEducation.NewYork:Springer.

EDUsummITparticipantsinBangkok


ThematicWorkingGroup1

SmartPartnerships

SummaryReport

NikiDavis,UniversityofCanterburyMargaretLeahy,DublinCityUniversity

CathyLewin,ManchesterMetropolitanUniversityAminaCharania,TataTrusts&TataInstituteofSocialSciences

HasnizaNordin,UniversitiUtaraMalaysia

With

AveMejia,UNESCOBangkokDavorOrlec,IJSJožefStefanInstituteDeirdreButler,DublinCityUniversityVanessaChang,CurtinUniversity

BenDanielMotidyang,UniversityofOtagoOlaErstad,UniversityofOslo

OlatzLopez-Fernandez,CatholicUniversityofLouvain

Backgroundandcontext

Aspartofitscommitmenttowardsinclusiveandequitablequalityeducationandlifelonglearningforall,UNESCO(2015)hasrecognisedtheneedforSmartPartnershipsamongeducation stakeholders “to create equitable, dynamic, accountable and sustainablelearner-centreddigital learningecosystems”(IncheonDeclaration).Inlinewithits2030education agenda, UNESCO also calls for further consultation and dialogue betweengovernmentsand theprivate sector todesign scalable innovative fundingmechanismsthat will secure the financial resources needed to unleash the full potential of digitaltechnologiesandICTforlearningintheQingdaoDeclaration.DespitesuchwidespreadagreementontheneedforSmartPartnershipsineducation,theworkinggroupfoundlittleresearchonsuchpractices.Asaconsequence,identifyingaSmartPartnershipwasacorechallengethatneededtobeaddressed.Forthisreason,thisEDUsummITworkinggroup(TGW1)acceptedUNESCOBangkok’sinvitationtorespondtotherequestoftheAsia-PacificMinisterialForumonICTinEducation(AMFIE)forabriefonresearchintoSmartPartnershipsandtheybegantogatherpotentialexemplarsaspartofawhitepaperonICTinfrastructureforschoolingcommissionedbyUNESCOInstituteofStatistics(Twining,Davis,&Charaniaetal.,2015).


WhatareSmartPartnerships?

Therefore,themostimportantactivityattheEDUsummITinBangkokwasforthisgrouptoidentifywhatmakesaSmartPartnership.Thiswasdoneasfollows,Multi-stakeholderpartnershipsbecomeSmartPartnershipsineducationwhenthey:

1. include partners within and across education (including teachers, theirorganisations, and researchers), government (of education, commerce & lawenforcementetc.),industry,communities,andcivilsociety(e.g.NGOs)

2. haveasharedpurpose(values,conceptvision)thatevolvesintoasynergy(morethanasumoftheparts)

3. haveastrategicandholisticapproach4. enhancethequalityofeducationwithdigitaltechnologies(ICT)5. harness ICT smartly (e.g. evidence immediately deployed to improve

performance)6. recognisetheirroleintheemergentprocess(es);and7. facilitatetheirownorganisationstochange.

While it ispossibletohaveaSmartPartnershipwithasmallscope,a largeinitiativetoenhancethequalityofeducationwithdigitaltechnologies(ICT)foraregionismorelikelyto be sustained with a Smart Partnership that encompasses all seven characteristicslistedabove.ASmartPartnershipmayincludeoneormoresmallerSmartPartnership(s)withinit.SomebetterknownSmartPartnershipsmaybeverylimitedinthesynergyachievedwithrespecttoUNESCO’svisionandtheneedsoftheAsiaPacificregion.Forexample,IBM’sSmartPartnershipsprojects,whichincludecasestudiesineducation,areconsideredbyIBM to be ‘smart’ due to the way in which they harness Learning Analytics (seecharacteristic 5 above). However, where only that one characteristic is deployed, the‘smart’natureofthepartnershipisverylimited.Aninterestingexamplethatwehopetoexplorefurtheristhe“FlemishMinistryofEducationEasyaccesstoeducationalanalyticswith a single portal for 4,000 schools” (see IBM Business Analytics, n.d.). We alsorecognise the relevance of Grobe’s (1990) analysis of industry-education partnershipsthroughwhichdevelopedaseriesofthreetypologiesthatisusefulbecauseitdescribestrue partnerships, as opposed to more one-off interactions. Grobe’s three types ofindustry-education partnerships are (1) levels of involvement that also describes thematuring as partners engage more deeply with one another, (2) the partnershipstructure,and(3)thelevelofimpactofthepartnershipontheeducationsystem.AnimportantoutcomeoftheEDUsummITinBangkokisthereforetherecognitionoftheimportanceofallsixaspectsofSmartPartnershipslistedabove.Thesewillbedevelopedfurther into a definition in the TGW1 Policy Brief on Smart Partnerships for widerdissemination.


IllustrationsofSmartPartnerships

The working group also applied Davis Arena of Change with Digital Technologies inEducation(Davis,2015)tobegintoanalyseanddescribetwoSmartPartnerships,onetoreachremoteandunderservedpopulations in IndiaandtheotheranationwideVirtualLearningEnvironmentbeingdeployed inMalaysia. In India,the IntegratedapproachtoTechnology in Education (ITE) is an initiative of the Tata Trusts in twelvemostly rurallocationsinEasternandnorthernIndia.AminaCharaniawasthekeyinformant.TheITEapproach is a largely constructivist pedagogical framework to improve teaching andlearningprocessesandfosterauthenticandprojectbasedlearningfortheolderchildrenand adolescents in some of the most underprivileged geographies in India. Students,mostly first time computer users, create learning artifacts to deepen their and peers’learning of content, such as weather charts, graphics of jute production in India, orcomparepopulationdensity incities.Alltheprojectsassignedarecarefullyselectedbytheteachersandmatchwiththecurriculumandlessonscurrentlytaughtintheschool.The projects initiatedwith an existing partnership between the organizations and theTrust.Inthiscase,theTrustconceptualizedtheprogram,approachedtheorganizationswhowereworkingwithadolescents through learning centres (seeCharania, 2015,pp.64-67).Figure1isaphotographofthisIndianITESmartPartnershipthatwassketchedinTheArena,withaTeacheratthecentrewhoislocatedinaschoolandcomplementedbyateacherworkingasanICTFacilitatorlocatedinaLearningCentreinthecommunity.

Figure1.Aphotographofan IndianSmartPartnershipthatwassketchedbyNikiDaviswithTGW1duringEDUsummITintheArena,withateacheratthecentrewhoislocatedin a school and complemented by a teacherworking as an ICT facilitator located in alearningcentreinthecommunity.AminaCharaniawasthekeyinformant.


Hasniza Nordin fromMalaysia was the key informant for our second illustration of aSmart Partnership. In Malaysia in 2014, 12 Junior Science College known as MaktabRendahSains (MRSM)governedbyabranchof theMinistryofEducation (MARA) thatwere selected for an innovative approach to schooling called “Learning Powered byTechnology”, throughwhich the partners align concepts such as theMalaysian SmartSchoolandtheMalaysianMinistryofEducation’sBlueprint(2013-2025).Thestrategyistoleadwiththecontentandpedagogyaspectswiththeuseofdigitaltechnologiesandnationwide online platform (see Nordin & Davis, 2015, pp.72-74). The partners holdcomplementary responsibilities in order to successfully integrate this approach toteaching and learning and blended online environment. In this Smart Partnership, (1)MARA plays a role of the main provider; (2) the national Telecom™ company andMicrosoft™ with its global reach provide the technology facilities for the 12 regionalcentres(MRSM);and(3)MSRMprovideprofessionaldevelopmentthroughoutMalaysiaincollaborationwithContentCapitalanduniversityteachereducators,includingHasnizaNordin, Universiti UtaraMalaysia. Figure 2 is a photograph of thisMalaysian focusedSmart Partnership sketched by TGW1 on The Arena during the EDUsummIT, with ateacherinoneclassroomofoneoftheMRSMatthecentre.

Figure 2. A photograph of a potential Malaysian Smart Partnership sketched by NikiDaviswithTGW1ontheArenaduringEDUsummIT,withateacheratthecentreinoneclassroomofoneofthepartnerschools,withotherschool’sclassroomsbehindher.ThekeyinformantwasHasnizaNordin.


Challenges

ThefollowingchallengeswererecognisedbyTGW1:

● Developasharedunderstanding/definitionofSMARTPARTNERSHIPs.● Identification of which stakeholders should be involved in the partnership i.e.

whoshouldbeinvolvedtoensurethatthepartnershipiscomplete?● Ensuringtheparticipationofallstakeholders

○ How to encourage/motivate business partners into areas in which theyhave no presence? e.g. rural, remote areas, out-of-school organisationsetc.

○ Howtopromotethe‘buyin’ofeducatorsandotherstakeholders?● Tensionindevelopingasharedvision,trust&respectacross&betweenpartners.● Power issues: development of distributed ownership and responsibility across

partners.● Engagementofsufficientnumbersofeducatorstoensuresustainability.● Howtogatherconvincingevidencethatillustratesasuccessfulpartnership?● Whatindicatorsarehelpfulinevaluatingprogressinprojects?● HowtoharnessICT‘smartly’togatherevidence,toprovideimmediatefeedback

andtocommunicate● Deepenunderstandingofscalabilityandsmartpartnerships.

Recommendations

The following recommendations were made to address a variety of stakeholdersincludingresearchers,policymakers,andeducationalpractitioners:

● DevelopandcommunicateasharedunderstandingofSmartPartnership.● MoreresearchonSmartPartnershipsshouldbecommissioned.

○ ParticularlyintheAsiaPacificregion.○ Developrobustindicatorsforeffectivesmartpartnerships.○ Develop more robust indicators for learning outcomes resulting from

SmartPartnerships.● Smart Partnerships should be comprehensive and be inclusive of communities

andcontext(i.e.,movebeyondeducationsystems).● Smart Partnerships need smart communication strategies; attention should be

paidtothisfromtheoutset.● Additionalincentivesrequiredwhenthebusinesscaseisnotclearforallparties

(e.g.,rural/remoteareas,marginalisedlearners).● UNESCOandEDUsummITparticipantsshouldadvocatefor:

○ Capacity building to increase the number and sustainability of smartpartnerships

○ CapacitybuildingforsmartICTuse(e.g.,accesstobigdata).○ SmartPartnershipswherescalabilityisnecessary.


TGW1ActionPlan

Thisreportconcludeswithanactionplanthattakesourworkintothefuture.ItbeginswithactionstakenduringtheEDUsummITTGW1madeprogresswithitsactionplan.AsdescribedinthefirstsectionofthisreportthecharacteristicsofSmartPartnershipswereagreedand twoexamplesweremappedonDavis’Arena to illustrate the scopeof thepartnershipfromlocaltoglobal(seeFigures1and2).FollowingthemeetinginBangkokthegroupagreedtoundertakethefollowingactions(withleadersidentifiedbytheirinitials):

● Developpolicypaperandwaystodisseminate it intheAsia-Pacificregion,suchasMinisterialForumonICTinEducation(AMFIE).(AM,ND,HN&all)

● DiscussionpaperonSmartPartnershipsdevelopedforspecialissue.(ML&all)● ResearchpaperIndianSmartPartnershipforspecialissue.(AC&ND)● EDUsummIT2017TWGonorganisationalchange/evolution.(ND&DO)● ContributetoUNESCOforpolicymakers,e.g.,AMFIE,RDTC.(ND&HN)● SymposiumforIFIPTC3conferenceJuly2016inPortugal.(CL,ND)● DevelopresearchbibliographyinGoogledocetc.(NDandall)● MaparangeofSmartPartnershipsusingDavis’Arena(ND,AS,DO,HN)

Finally,wewouldliketonotethattheworkofmostoftheotherTGWshaveagendathatlinkwithTGW1:SmartPartnerships,butfewofthemrecognisedthisatthetimeoftheplenaryinthesecondandfinaldayofEDUsummITinBangkok.ThefourTWGsthatarelikelytofindgreaterrelevanceofSmartPartnershipswiththeirtopicsarerecommendedtoconsiderthisaspectwithintheirwork.Theyare:

TGW4:Addressinggaps&promotingeducationalequity;TGW7:Indicatorsofqualitytechnology-enhancedlearningandteaching;TGW8:Digitalcitizenshipandcyberwellness;TGW9:Curriculum-AdvancingunderstandingoftherolesofComputerScience/Informaticsinthecurriculum.

References

Note:Thereferencesareincludedaslinks,includingthefollowingkeyitems:Grobe,T.(1990).Asynthesisofexistingknowledgeandpracticeinthefieldofeducationalpartnerships.BrandeisUniversity,Waltham:MA.CenterforHumanResources.Retrievedfromhttp://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=ED325535UNESCO(2015).IncheonDeclaration.Education2030:Towardsinclusiveandequitablequalityeducationandlifelonglearningforall.Retrievedfromhttp://en.unesco.org/world-education-forum-2015/incheon-declaration


Twining,P.,Davis,N.E.&Charania,A.(2015).Developingnewindicatorstodescribedigitaltechnologyinfrastructureinprimaryandsecondaryeducation.Montreal,CA:UNESCOInstituteforStatistics.



AdvancingMobileLearninginFormalandInformalSettings

SummaryReport

FerialKhaddage,DeakinUniversity

RowlandBaker,SantaCruzCountyOfficeofEducation

With

KimFlintoff,CurtinUniversityWolfgangMuller,UniversityofEducationofWeingarten

AukenTungatarova,UNESCOBangkokBarryQuinn,King’sCollegeLondon

ElliotSoloway,UniversityofMichiganCathieNorris,UniversityofNorthTexas

ImmoKortelainen,TampereUniversityofAppliedSciencesLindaFang,TemasekPolytechnic

YiddaMarcial,LucilaPerez,andDoloresZambranoUniversidadCasaGrande

Introduction

DuringtheFourth InternationalSummiton ICT inEducation(EDUsummIT,2015)whichwas held in Bangkok, Thailand, members of the Thematic Working Group 2 (TWG2)discussedmethods, strategies,andguidelines for someof the issuesandchallenges inthe design, implementation, evaluation, and policy development of mobile learning.Somemajorkeychallengeswerehighlightedanddiscussedalongwithissuesthatpolicymakers,teachers,researchers,andstudentsarefacinginmobilelearning.Basedontheoutcomefromtheframeworkthatidentifiedbarriersandlimitationsalongwithdynamiccriteriaformobilelearningimplementation,whichwastheoutcomeofTWG2fromtheEDUsummIT 2013 (Khaddage et. al., 2015), the group briefly summed up majorchallenges and identified possible solutions that could be applied to solve thesechallenges.The implemented framework classified challenges into four categories: Pedagogicalchallenges, technological challenges, policy challenges and research challenges. Anynew technology leads to new pedagogies, new policy and new research; these fourfactorscombinedcanformasolidinfrastructurethatmayhelpadopteffectivewaysofmobilelearningapplication(referKhaddageet.al.,2015toreadmoreaboutthemodel).All evolutionary change usually takes place in response to ecological interactions thatoperateon theoverall ecosystem,and in this case the interaction isobviousbetween


these four challenges and they can allow the understanding of the structure andfunctionofeachoneofthem.Understandingtherelationshipsbetweenthesechallengesareessential forapropermobile learning integrationanda successfulmobile learningecology(Zhao&Frank,2003).

Mobilelearningasaconceptandtheoryhasevolvedrapidly, it isnolongerconsideredtechnocentric(devicesandtechnologies),itismoreaboutthelearner’smobilityandhowwe as educators can engage them in learning activities without them being wirelyrestrictedtoaphysical location.Hencecomesthechallengeoffindingappropriateandeffectivemethodstoblendformalandinformallearningasseamlesslearningcanoccuranytime,(formalin-classroom,orinformaloutsideclassroom).

Background

Newtechnologicalinnovationsalwaysbringalonggreatpassionandopenupenormouspossibleeducationalapplicationsandopportunity.This isnotnewasthishasbeenthecase for so many decades. In 1913, when film was first used in instruction, ThomasEdisonwasoptimisticofthepotentialthatthiscouldbringtoeducationandheclaimedthen that “themotionpicture isdestined to revolutionizeoureducational systemandthatinafewyearsitwillsupplantlargely,ifnotentirely,theuseoftextbooks”(Cuban,1986, p. 9), although instructional films did contribute a great deal in some militarytraining, (Noble, 1991) but filmshavenever replaced the traditional book. Thesedayssome would argue that technologists are very optimistic about the capability oftechnologiesandtheythinkofitasareplacementtotheexistingmethodsandcurrenttrends, but is this shift about the technology or the curriculum? Are technology andeducationbecominginseparable?Sofar, it isapparentthatdespitetheresultspresentedfromsomanyresearchstudiessuch asOoms, Linsey,Webb, and Panayiotidis (2008) andmanymore, the infusion ofmobile technologies into educational setting has not beenwidely adapted yet. Manyteachers inschoolsandcollegesarestill reluctant toallowwidespreadaccess tothesedevicesinaformalclassroomsetting(Khaddageet.al.,2009).Thishasresultedinmanystudentsbeingboredinclassroomsandaddedtothealreadyhighdropoutrate.Othersmay simply not pay attention during class time, adding to poor performance. Manystudentsfeelthatthematerialsprovidedaresomehowirrelevantforthem,notengaginganddon’tsatisfytheirneeds,asthesematerialsareout-datedanddonotfitintotoday’ssociety(Khaddage,etal.,2012;Knezek,etal.,2011).WhileWeb2.0 (e.g.,SMS,Twitter) supportsasynchronouscollaboration, theemergingSocial 3.0 apps (e.g., Google Docs Editor) support synchronous collaboration. Uponreflection this is not surprising but schools (read: teachers) don't really care aboutsynchronous collaboration technology; they care about the pedagogical impact of thetechnology,e.g.,facilitatingsociallearning.Thequestionremains:whenmobilelearningwillcomeintotheprimary/secondaryclassroomsandbecomeavaluablecomponentofthe curriculum? Neither the iPads nor the Chromebooks support all-the-time,everywhere learning. Do Smartphones? Is mobile learning finally poised to make thelevelof impactonteachingandlearningthatmobility ishavingonmostotherareasofhumanendeavour?WiththeriseoftheInternetofThings(IoT),thescopeofmLearningis poised to be redefined in a very significant way – wearable devices and IoT


interactions introduce a whole raft of new considerations, and all of these combinedpoisechallengeson informal learning, thesechallengesaresummarisedand illustratedinFigure1.KeyChallengesforInformalLearning

Figure1.Keychallengesfacinginformallearning.RecommendationsandPossibleSolutions

Acknowledging informal learning is still the biggest challenge faced by educationalinstitutions.Valuinginformallearningshouldbeconsideredcrucialelementtoconsiderwhendevelopingeducationalpolicies.SofaronlyfewcountriessuchasSouthAfricaandIrelandawardqualificationsbasedonknowledgegainedvia informal learning,and therest still have no formal policy framework for this type of learning (Werquin, 2010).Makinginformallearningavaluedandvisiblecomponentoftheeducationsystemisveryimportant, and that was the main challenge that group TWG2 discussed duringEDUsummIT. Educational institutions should re-evaluate the current educationalframeworkanddecideonhow to fit in seamlessly informal learning. Informal learningshould be embedded in educational contexts by training teachers via professionaldevelopment on how to help learners know how to share knowledge gained throughinformallearningactivitiesandtasks,andletthemseethepotentialofthissharingandcollaboration activities amongst learners. Thismayhelp to broaden the acceptanceofthistypeoflearning.Figure2isaself-explanatoryillustrationofpossiblesolutionstotheidentifiedchallenges.


Figure2.Solutionstotheidentifiedchallenges.

InnovativePracticesandFutureConsiderations

When it comes to design challenges of mobile learning, leading mobile apps aredelivering exceptional user experiences (UXs) achieved with a variety of techniquesincluding motivational design, "quiet" design, "playful" interfaces and newmethodological approaches (Gartner, 2015). Designers are also creating apps that canaccommodate mobile challenges, such as partial user attention and interruption, orexploittechnologieswithnovelfeaturesinanattempttohookthelearnerintousingthetechnologytocompletethelearningtask.Agoodexampleofthisisaugmentedreality.AccordingtoGartner(2015),bytheyear2020anaffluenthouseholdwillcontainseveralhundred smart objects, including domestic appliances, sports equipment, medicaldevicesandcontrollablepowersocketsetc.Thesedomesticsmartmobileobjectswillbea part of the Internet of Things (IoT), and the majority of them will be able tocommunicate in somewaywith an app on a smartphone or tablet. Smartphones andtabletswillperformmanyfunctions,includingactingasremotecontrols,displayingandanalysinginformation,interfacingtosocialnetworkstomonitor"things"thatcantweetorpostforlearningactivitiesandtasksinformally.Thiscombinationofsmartobjectsandmobileappsandtechnologieswillenableanevenwiderrangeoflearningopportunities(Gartner,2015).Sofaronlyasmallnumberofsmartobjectsandappliancesareavailablein2014suchassensors, the range of domestic smart objectswill continue to grow and how thiswillaffect the learning environment in an informal settings is quite still not clear. On theotherhandcellular technologiessuchasLTEandLTE-Acan improvespectralefficiencyandwill push cellular networks to theoretical peak downlink speeds of up to 1 Gbps(GigaBits per second). Additional benefits include reduced latency. LTE is alreadypartiallydeployedinmanycountries.AfewLTE-Atrialshavebeenconductedattheendof2013.OncedeploymentofatechnologysuchasLTEorLTE-Astarts,ittypicallytakessevento10yearstoachievenationwidecoverageanduseradoption.Allusersofcellulardata benefit from improved bandwidth reduced latency and increased capacity.Applicationsthatdemandhigh-speedreal-timedatasuchasstreamingvideowillbenefitsubstantially; so, forexample, LTE is allowing somecellularnetworks to competewithsatellite data for broadcasting applications and this will definitely improve mobileaccessibilityforlearningcontent.


New technologies bring along new issues, wearable technologies such as watchesdisplaying email and messages will pose new security and management challenges.Devices that can record video will raise many privacy concerns, as has beendemonstrated by Google Glass. Educational institutions are still fretting aboutmobilelearning(policiesaswellaspedagogies,researchandtechnologies)andstrugglingtofindways of proper integration. Hopefully the provided solution if delivered properlymayhelpinsolvingtheidentifiedkeychallengesandhelpinpreparingeducationinstitutionsin finding unique approaches to blend informal learning seamlessly into their existingsetting.ActionPlan

• DevelopapolicypaperforUNESCOby31ofOctober2015.• Finalizeadiscussionpaperandsubmitby15ofNovember2015.• ProvideajournalarticleonmobilelearningbasedonTWG2workatEDUsummIT

byFebruary2016.• SubmitanAERA/WERAproposaltopresentfindingsandoutcomesfromTWG2.• DeveloppaperonmobilelearningforRefugees“Food,WaterandSimCards”to

bepresentedatUNESCOduringtheMobileLearningWeek,onMarch2016.• Continue our Professional Learning Network on mobile learning and informal

education.• Shareoutresultslocallyandinternationallyviapresentationsandpublications.

Conclusionandfuturework

When blending formal and informal learning, educational institutions should not beaimingtounintentionallyformalizeinformallearning,butrathertheyshouldbelookingto find new and unique methods and approaches to incorporate it and blend itseamlessly into their settings. While there are potentials with informal learning andparticularly in low resource context, more research needed to be done to furtherunderstandthisshiftintechnologyandineducationalsettings(formallyandinformally).More funding for informal learning initiatives should be made available in order foreducators, researcher, policy makers and practitioners to highlight the value andbenefits of this type of learning. The continues and consistentwork of TWG2 via theapplication of the mobile learning framework see (Khaddage et. al., 2015), and thepresented challenges are considered useful techniques that can be used to test theecological theory in themobile learning framework,henceassistingresearchers,policymakers and educators in the practical implementation within the mobile learningenvironment.

References

Cuban,L. (1986).Teachersandmachines:Theclassroomuseof technologysince1920.NewYork:TeachersCollegePress.Gartner(2015).PressReleaseTAMFORD,Conn.Retrievedfromhttp://www.gartner.com/newsroom/id/2970017


Khaddage,F.,Knezek,G.,&Baker,R.,(2012).Formalandinformallearning:Bridgingthegap via Mobile App Technology (MAT). 15th International Conference on InteractiveCollaborativeLearning(ICL),26-28Sept.2012.doi:10.1109/ICL.2012.6402162Khaddage,F.,Lanham,E.,&Zhou,W.(2009).Amobile learningmodel foruniversities:Re-blending the current learning environment. International Journal of InteractiveMobileTechnologies,3(1),18–23.Khaddage, F., Christensen, N., Lai,W., Knezek, G., Norris, C., & Soloway, E. (2015). Amodel driven framework to address challenges in a mobile learning environment.EducationandInformationTechnologies,20(4),625-640.Knezek G., Lai, K. W., Khaddage F., & Baker R. (2011). TWG 2: Student TechnologyExperiencesinFormalandInformalLearning.DiscussionpaperforTWG2ofEDUsummIT2011.Paris:UNESCO.Noble, D. D. (1991). The classroom arsenal:Military research, information technologyandpubliceducation.NewYork:FalmerPress.Ooms,A.,Linsey,T.,Webb,M.&Panayiotidis,A.(2008).Thein-classroomuseofmobiletechnologies to support diagnostic and formative assessment and feedback. Paperpresented at the 7th London International Scholarship of Teaching and LearningConference,London,U.K.

Werquin, P. (2010)RecognizingNon-formal and informal Learning: Outcomes, Policiesand Practices, retrieved from the European University Continuing Education Network.Retrieved fromhttp://www.eucen.eu/sites/default/files/OECD_RNFIFL2010_Werquin.pdf

Zhao,Y.,&Frank,K.A.(2003).Factorsaffectingtechnologyusesinschools:Anecologicalperspective.AmericanEducationalResearchJournal,40(4),807-840.



Professionaldevelopmentforpolicymakers,schoolleadersandteachers

SummaryReport

PeterAlbion,UniversityofSouthernQueensland

AlonaForkosh-Baruch,TelAvivUniversityJoTondeur,GhentUniversity

With

TonyBrandenburg,ISTEPaulD’Souza,SomaiyaCollegeofEducation&Research

MartinLevins,TheArmidaleSchoolLayChengTan,UNESCOBangkok

MunFieTsoi,MFR-Training&ConsultancyNicosValanides,UniversityofCyprusJohnWilson,BuraphaUniversity


Continuingprofessionaldevelopmentforallactorsatallstages iscritically important ifeducation is to be transformed through the application of information andcommunication technologies (ICT) (Voogt & Knezek, 2008). Successive EDUsummITmeetingshaveincludedworkinggroupsonteacherprofessionaldevelopment(TPD)fortheapplicationofICTineducation,therebyrecognizingtheimportanceofeffectiveTPDfor successful implementation of ICT into the education system at all levels, frompreschool through secondary schools, to higher education and teacher education.Nevertheless,thereremainsmuchworktobedonetoensurethatTPDmeetstheneedsofteachersacrossawidevarietyofcontextsandcultures.

Lack of suitable professional developmentmay exacerbate the digital divide betweenandwithincountriesandevenwithinindividualschools(Anderson,2010)if itresultsinineffectiveapplicationofICT(OECD,2015).Still,although,accesstoICTisaprerequisite,itdoesnotinevitablybringabout‘better’ learningoutcomes.Itremainstruethatwhatteachersdowithwhatever(little)ICTisavailablehasgreaterimpactonlearningthanthemerepresenceofICT.

Development of an appropriate ICT Competency Framework for Teachers may assistcountries to develop effective policies and standards within a master plan for ICT ineducation(UNESCO,2011).EDUsummIT2011highlightedtheimportanceofachievingashared vision of ICT implementation and supporting its realisation by engaging allstakeholdersindecisionsaboutTPD,promotingnetworksandcommunitiesforTPD,and


including ICTas an integral componentof TPD (Twining,Raffaghelli,Albion,&Knezek,2013). Following EDUsummIT 2013, a conceptualmodel linking researchwith practicewasdevelopedwith illustrativecasesofkeyprinciplesapplied indifferentpartsof theworld(Albion,Tondeur,Forkosh-Baruch,&Peeraer,2015).ThemainthemesaddressedduringEDUsummIT2015were:(1)theimportanceofcontextualization;(2)thechallengeofsustainableandscalableTPD;(3)thequestionhowtolinkTPDforICTintegrationtoeducational innovation; and (4) systemic and systematic TPD. Finally, TWG3 alsointroducedanewconceptinthisfield:5)technologydiscernment.

Issuesandchallenges

BasedonthepaperpreparedinadvanceofEDUsummIT2015anddiscussionsduringthemeeting, the following are proposed as issues and challenges for teacher professionaldevelopment that should inform the work of policymakers and leaders within theeducationsystem.

i. Contextualization:socioculturalawareness,digitaldiversityandequity

Technology enables us to create, collect, store and use information; to connect withpeople and resources all over theworld; to collaborate in creating knowledge; and todistributeandbenefit fromknowledgeproducts (OECD,2015).However,manypeoplelack access to ICT, resulting in a new formof exclusion often described as the ‘digitaldivide’. Lackofaccess to the Internet isoneof themostdamaging formsofexclusion(Tondeur,Sinnaeve,vanHoutte,&vanBraak,2011;VanDijk,2006).

Globalisationoftheeconomyshouldnotimplyhomogenisationofculture.PDinsupportofICTapplicationineducationshouldbebothsensitiveto,andenablingof,differencesin historic, social, cultural, economic, and political contexts. Technology integration isalsoinfluencedbyspecificschoolculturesthatrequirecarefulalignmentofcontentandpedagogicalknowledge.ThesedifferencesshouldbeseenasassetswithinPD.

ii. SustainabilityandscalabilityofPD

Providing continuing PD about ICT implementation in education to all who need it ischallenging because of the large numbers to be reached and the need for frequentupdates in response todevelopments in ICT. Sustainability,meaning regular and long-lastingrenewalandefficientuseofavailableresources,andscalability,meaningcapacityto reach all and disseminate ideas, are key characteristics for success. Ministries ofEducationaswell as collegesof education increasingly acknowledge theneed tooffergeneric professional development programs that meet the needs of education in atechnologysavvycontext,therebyensuringlong-lastingimpactoneducationoutcomes.

Working with teachers to develop their knowledge, beliefs, and attitudes can build asustainable culture that supports ICT as integral to learning and teaching (Ertmer &Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010). Group members agreed that professional developmentshouldbe conductedusingadvanced ICT tools, platformsandonlineenvironments, tosupportprofessionallearningaboutemergingICTandnewformsofliteracies.Hence,weidentified thevalueofenabling teachers to share their ideasandprovideexamplesoftheir good practices so that, through this process of understanding, sharing andnegotiating,thesenewpracticescanbetransferredintolocalsettings(Prestridge,2015).


In this fashion, an enabling model is preferred where teachers are providing andnegotiating the ‘good practices’ to be appropriated rather than a ‘deficitmodel’ thatimposesthe‘goodpractices’identifiedbysomecentralauthority.OpportunitiesforTPDavailable through online communities of practice, social networking and onlineenvironmentscanprovidebothsustainableandscalableoutcomesacrossgeographicalandculturalcontexts.

BarriersforscalingandsustainingPDincludesocialandculturalfactors,lackofteachers’TPCK, inadequate infrastructure, limitationsof Internetdiffusion, linguisticdifferences,andgeographicalseparation(Edirisinghe,2015).Thesefactorsaremutuallydependent.Modelsofongoing lifelong learningorcontinuousprofessionaldevelopmentshouldbebuilt inwaysthatsupport implementationacrossdiversesettings,therebyallowingforscalabilityandsustainability(Ellaway,2013).

iii. EmpowerpedagogythroughICT

Membersconcurredthattheroleofeducationistheadvancementofsociety,whichcanbe achieved only by endorsing a culture of transformation, innovation andentrepreneurship. Supporting the effective application of ICT to enhance learning andteaching innovelwaysmay serveasa foundation for successful TPD, andvice versa -utilizing ICT in novel ways within TPDmay facilitate innovative pedagogical practices,that will, in turn, send to practice innovative teachers whomay affect the educationsystemasawhole, thereby leveragingefforts in the fieldandestablishingProfessionalDevelopment 2.0 (Archambault, Wetzel, Foulger, & KimWilliams, 2010; Prestridge &Tondeur,2015).Educationevolvesinparallelwithinnovativepedagogicalpracticesusingtechnology so that novel ICT-empowered pedagogies are emerging constantly. Theseinclude new approaches to content delivery and merging of content from differentdisciplines,whichmayinturncreateanewcurriculum.Inshort,whatisexpectedoftheTPDprocess(effectiveapplicationofICTtoenhancelearningandteaching),isnotsimplytobeaprocessoftransformationand/orinnovationbutaprocessofsocialchangeinthetransaction of pedagogy and content; it is assumed that “history is on the side ofchange”(Cobb,2007,p.14).

iv. SystemicandsystematicPD

Professional development of teachers requires a lifelong learning approach, beginningwith pre-service teacher education programs, and continuing throughout theirprofessional lifespan. During the discussions, several projects were showcasedaddressing the importanceofsystemicapproaches tochange. In this respect,effectivepreparationofpre-serviceteachersfortechnologyintegrationrequiresattentionto:(1)all the stakeholders at different levels in the education system; and (2) local factors(cultural and structural), but also demands similar attention toward the relationshipsbetween the themes (Kay,2006;Mioduser,Nachmias,Tubin,&Forkosh-Baruch,2002;Tondeuretal.,2012).

At the same time several TWG3 members stressed the importance of systematic(gradualandevolving)changeefforts.ThisalignswiththeresultsofSeels,Campbell,andTalsma(2003)whoconcludedthatitwouldtakealongperiodwithconstantreiterationstoseesubstantialchangeintechnologyintegration(seealsoAlbionetal.,2015;Tondeuret al., 2015). Underpinning this conclusion is the understanding that teacher


participation in the learning ‘process’ and the development of learner autonomy (andself-regulationespeciallyonline)areconsideredoutcomesofprofessionaldevelopment(Prestridge & Tondeur, 2015). Systematic PD also refers to the need for lifelongprofessionalprocesses.

v. Technologydiscernment

Educational decision makers—whether teachers, principals or policy-makers—have tomakewisedecisionsabouttheselectionanddeploymentofICTandaboutthecontentanddeliveryofPDtosupportapplicationofICTinordertoensurethattheoutcomesareenhancededucationforall.Criticalanalysisofavailabledatamaynotnecessarilyleadtoa clear decision and may need an additional perceptive judgment, “psychological ormoralinnature,”(“Discernment,”2015,para1)calleddiscernment.

Trauffer (2008) asserts that “discernment represents a multidimensional concept ofdecisionmakingbylogicandreason,byempathygainedthroughunderstanding,andbymoralethics”(p.13).Termingdiscernmentasa“21stcenturydecisionmakingmodel,”Trauffer(2008)furtherexplainsdiscernmentas“theabilitytoregulateone'sthinkingintheacquisitionandapplicationofknowledgetomakedecisionsthatareright,fair,andjust.” This notion of discernment is more than simple critical thinking required of aneducational leaderwhen deciding about the technological inputs—whether hardware,software,processorprocedure,andcanbedescribedastechnologydiscernment.Thepowerofdiscernmentwhenspecificallyappliedtothechoiceoftechnologyintheformofproducts,servicesorprocessesinvolvedintheTPD,canensuretherealworkingneedsof the TPD participants are met and thus keep them engaged and motivated in asustainablemanner.

Recommendations

Discussionswithin thegroupproduceda setof recommendationsdirected toassistingpolicymakersandprincipals,aseducationalleaders,todisseminateeffectiveTPDrelatedtotechnologyimplementation.Policymakersareencouragedto:

i. engagethewidestpossiblerangeofstakeholdersineducationsystemsforTPDintheneedsassessment,choiceandapplicationofICTtolearning;

ii. recognise that deployment of ICT alone is not sufficient but that teachers arenecessaryandactivecontributors to thedesignofgoodpractice, inaddition toothercontributorsincludingministries,NGOsandthecommercialsector;

iii. encouragenetworks and communities of support among teachers, support thedevelopmentofasynergisticecosystemandtheuseofopeneducationresources(OER),andpromotelessonslearnedforbroaderadoption;

iv. distributefindingsofactionanddesignresearchabouttheuseofICTineducationfromindividualteachers,schools,academia,andministries;

v. identifyasetofrequiredICTcompetenciesforteachersandconsiderthepossibleroleofsuchcompetenciesinre-certificationofteachers;and

vi. updateeducationalpolicyrelatedtoPDfocusedonICTandcreateacontinuumofpre-andin-servicePDfocusedonICT.


Inaddition,principalsareencouragedto:

i. consider how teachers’ beliefs about learning influence their applicationof ICTforteaching;

ii. engage teachers to persuade them of the need for pedagogical change andmatchtoPDwithimmediatepracticalapplication;

iii. documentanddisseminategoodpractices;iv. conduct PD in practice-based environments, encouraging teachers to utilise

availableICTfacilities;andv. decentralise classrooms by leveraging online social networks for sharing and

negotiationofgoodpractice.

Actionplan

Discussion within TWG3 resulted in proposals for several actions to follow fromEDUsummIT2015andextenditsinfluence.Theyincludeseveralpublicationswithfocusonbothscholarlyandpolicymattersinordertobuildbridgesbetweenpolicy,researchandpractice.Specificplansinclude:

i. Three scholarly papers targeted initially for the proposed special issue of theJournalofEducationalTechnology&Societyonthesetopics:

a. Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK) and ProfessionalDevelopment

b. ProfessionalDevelopment,technologydiscernment,andsustainabilityc. ChallengesandmodelsforprofessionaldevelopmentrelativetoICT

ii. PolicypapertocontributetodevelopmentofapolicydocumentbyUNESCOiii. Thissummarydocumentforthee-bookthatwillbepublishedontheEDUsummIT

websiteiv. Conferencepresentations:AllIndiaAssociationforEducationalResearch(AIAER),

Thiruvananthapuram, India; Society for Information Technology and TeacherEducation (SITE 2016); Australian Council for Computers in Education (ACCE2016); European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction (EARLI2017)-stillunderexamination.

References

Albion,P.R.,Tondeur,J.,Forkosh-Baruch,A.,&Peeraer,J.(2015).Teachers’professionaldevelopment for ICT integration: Towards a reciprocal relationship between researchandpractice.EducationandInformationTechnologies,20(4),655-673.Anderson, J. (2010). ICT Transforming Education: A Regional Guide. Bangkok:UNESCOBangkok.Retrievedfromhttp://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0018/001892/189216E.pdfArchambault, L., Wetzel, K., Foulger, T. S., & Kim Williams, M. (2010). Professionaldevelopment 2.0: Transforming teacher education pedagogy with 21st century tools.JournalofDigitalLearninginTeacherEducation,27(1),4-11.


Cobb, J.B., Jr. (2007). Sustainability: Economy, Ecology and Justice. Oregon:Wipf andStockPublishers.Discernment.(2015).InWikipedia.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DiscernmentEdirisinghe, M.N.S. (2015). The role of ICT in Professional Knowledge Sharing amongTeachers and school leaders, National Conference. Maharagama, Sri Lanka: NationalInstituteofEducation.Ellaway,R.H.(2013).ActivitydesignsforProfessionalLearning.InBeetham,H.,&Sharpe,R.(Eds.),Rethinkingpedagogyforadigitalage:Designingfor21stcenturylearning(pp.188-203).NewYork:Routledge.Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T. (2010). Teacher technology change: Howknowledge,confidence,beliefs,andcultureintersect.JournalofResearchonTechnologyinEducation,42(3),255-284.Kay, R.H. (2006). Evaluating strategies used to incorporate technology into preserviceeducation:A reviewof the literature. Journal ofResearchonTechnology in Education,38,383-408.Mioduser, D., Nachmias, R., Tubin, D., & Forkosh-Baruch, A. (2002). Models ofpedagogical implementation of ICT in Israeli schools. Journal of Computer AssistedLearning,18(4),405-414.doi:10.1046/j.0266-4909.2002.00252.doc.xOECD (2015). Students, Computers and Learning:Making the Connection. PISA: OECDpublishing.http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264239555-enPrestridge, S (2015). Conceptualising self-generating online teacher professionaldevelopment.Technology,PedagogyandEducation.Prestridge, S., & Tonduer, J. (2015). Exploring elements that support teachers’engagementinonlineprofessionaldevelopment.EducationSciences,5(3),199-219.Seels,B.,Campbell,S.,&Talsma,V.(2003).Supportingexcellenceintechnologythroughcommunitiesoflearners.EducationalTechnologyResearchandDevelopment,51(1),91-104.Trauffer, H. C. V. (2008). Towards an understanding of discernment: a 21st-centurymodelofdecisionmaking(Unpublisheddoctoralthesis).RegentUniversity.Tondeur,J.,VanBraak,J.,Sang,G.,Voogt,J.,Fisser,P.,&Ottenbreit-Leftwich,A.(2012).Preparing pre-service teachers to integrate technology in education: A synthesis ofqualitativeevidence.Computers&Education,59(1),134-144.Tondeur, J., Krug, D., Mike, B., Smulders, M., & Chang, Z. (2015). Integrating ICT inKenyan secondary schools: An exploratory case study of a professional developmentprogram.Technology,Pedagogy&Education.


Tondeur, J.,Sinnaeve, I.,vanHoutte,M.,&vanBraak, J. (2011). ICTasculturalcapital:Therelationshipbetweensocioeconomicstatusandthecomputer-useprofileofyoungpeople.NewMedia&Society,13(1),151-168.Twining,P.,Raffaghelli,J.,Albion,P.R.,&Knezek,D.(2013).Movingeducationintothedigitalage:Thecontributionofteachers’professionaldevelopmentJournalofComputerAssistedLearning,29,426-437.UNESCO. (2011). UNESCO ICT Competency Framework for Teachers Retrieved fromhttp://iite.unesco.org/pics/publications/en/files/3214694.pdfVanDijk, J.A. (2006).Digitaldivide research,achievementsandshortcomings.Poetics,34(4),221-235.Voogt,J.,&Knezek,G.(Eds.).(2008).InternationalHandbookofInformationTechnologyinPrimaryandSecondaryEducation.NewYork:Springer.



AddressingGapsandPromotingEducationalEquity

SummaryReport

ThérèseLaferrière,UniversitéLavalDonPassey,LancasterUniversity

ManalYazbak-AbuAhmad,SakhninCollegeJanetPrice,UniversityofTasmania

DianaGross,JohnsHopkinsUniversity&GlobalCitizenEducateMiriShonfeld,KibbutzimCollegeofEducation,TechnologyandtheArts &MOFET

PaulResta,UniversityofTexasatAustinMironBhowmikandJonghwiPark,UNESCOBangkok

Introduction

The integration of digital technology into teaching and learning is a double-edgedchallenge.Whileonlinedistanceeducationincreasesaccesswithoutborderstoavarietyof subject and topic contents, onsite formal education is facing rising expectationsregardingthepracticesandnatureofmethodology.Educationalequityremainsagreatchallenge and is important to every country and to the global community as well.Previous TWG4 papers portrayed: 1) the state of infusion of information andcommunication technologies in the world; 2) the aspects of digital equity thatresearchershavepointedto;3)initiativestaken;and4)persistingissuesandchallenges.At EDUsummIT 2015, TWG4 focused on onsite sustainable innovation with digitaltechnology,primarilyintheclassroom.Theabsenceofsuchsustainableinnovationwithdigitaltechnologywasidentifiedasthe“newsituation”requiringnoteworthyattention.Wesubmitthatthiscriticalgapneedstobeovercomebeforeanysubstantiveprogresscanbemadeineducationalequitywithregardstodigitaltechnology.Thispaperhasfoursections:(1)Backgroundandcontext;(2)Issuesandchallenges;(3)Recommendationstoresearchers,policymakers,andeducationalpractitioners;and(4)Actionplan.BackgroundandContext

Worldwide organizations, foundations, and universities seek to support innovation ineducation that will decrease the digital technology gap. Moreover, computerhardware/software companies understand that providing free equipment to schoolsmight lead to future use. Therefore, for a combination of humanistic and businessmotives,avarietyofinitiativeshavebeentakingplaceindevelopedcountries,primarilyon a local level, that provide some elements of digital equipment and underwrite


teachertraining.Criticaldimensionsofcontext,includingcurriculum,classroomroutines,teachers'rolesandevaluationpracticesareoftenoverlooked. Allelements:hardware,resources, teaching, learning opportunities, and the end purpose are conditional anddependentoneachother.Forthisreasontheseelementsarebundledtogetherhere.Wedonotmeantoneglectthebasicissueofinequityofaccesstoeducationanddigitaltechnology outside/inside the classroom during the mandatory schooling years. Asshown in Figure 1 the United Nations specialized agency for information andcommunication technologies (ITU, 2015), indicates that there is impressive globalprogress inthepenetrationof Internet-basedinformationandcommunicationbutthatthepenetrationrateisonly9.5%intheleastdevelopedcountries.

Figure1.ICTrevolutionandremaininggaps.Researchindicatesthatitisessentialtoaccessbroadbandinordertoderivefullbenefitsfrom the Internet. Figure2graphs thosepopulationswhoaccess the Internet throughlandline and mobile phones. As noted in the World Economic Forum The GlobalInformationTechnologyReport2015: ICTsfor InclusiveGrowth (Duttaetal.,2015), thewidening divide in broadband access between themost developed countries and theleastdevelopedcountriesisadiscouragingtrend.


Figure2.Thewideningdigitalgap:Fixed-linebroadbandpenetration.The World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) set the target of 2015 forconnectingallsecondaryschoolsandprimaryschoolswithICTs(ITU,2014).Thistargetisanidealandmammothundertaking:

EvidenceshowsthatLCRs['learner-to-computerconnected’ratios]aregenerallydecreasing acrossmany countries, while school Internet rates are increasing –both generally and for fixed broadband specifically. However, change is notuniformandoccursatdifferent rates indifferent countries. Typically, countriesthat have strong policies and set targets for ICT in education with high-levelgovernmentandsector-widesupportshowthemostrapidchange.(p.75)While ingeneral itmustbe seenasadvantageous tohavemorecomputers forfewerstudents,itisnotclearwhattheidealratiomightbe.Thiswilldependalotonnationalcircumstancesandonhowcomputersareused; it issuggestedthatmoreresearchbeconductedinrespectofthisindicator.(p.75)

Research (such as Becker&Riel, 2000; Tamimet al., 2011) continues to find that thepedagogyinusemakesthedifference:technologyusedas«supportforcognition»hasgreater effect than technology used for «presentation of content». Bringing theInternettoschoolsandclassrooms–whatevermoney,timeandenergyitmayrequire–is only part of the equation. Technology must do more than reinforce the ‘teachereffect’.IssuesandChallenges

ICT-related educational programmes currently being designed, adopted andimplementedbythirdpartyorganizationsandgovernmentsmustconsiderthat:

1. technologyischangingrapidlyandisoftenrepurposed;


2. time isneededto implementandrecognizeagreedoutcomebenefits (whatwerefertohere,anddescribelater,as‘theUchallenge’);

3. therearedifferencesandcomplexitieswithinthecontextsindifferentcountries(political,social,technological, linguistic,cultural,economic, localandreligious);and

4. alloftheaboveareinterdependentandhavesignificantimplicationsforteachingandlearning.

Recommendationstoresearchers,policymakers,andeducationalpractitioners

To help researchers, policy makers and educational practitioners move forward, wemakethefollowingrecommendations:

1. Be aware that change is inevitable, and that sustainability has to embedadaptability(Rogers,2014).

2. Design projects inclusive of adequate time to build a reflective process thatanticipatesthedynamicsoftheUchallenge(theUchallengereferstothosetimeperiods that teachers are implementing uses of technologies when theirperformancedecreases,dueinitiallytotheneedtoaccommodatenewpractices(Mevarech,1997),andfindingthemostappropriatewaystobenefitfromthesepractices, then later, having to grapple with technologies that becomeincreasinglyobsoleteorincompatible).

3. Ensure understanding of what it is within a context that can gain systemiccommitmentsinvariouscontexts.

4. Commit resources and partners to long-term professional development ofeducators.

5. Build insystemicandsynchronoustop-downandbottom-upprocessesthatwillassuresustainability.

ActionPlan

Theworkinggroupwillproduce:

1. A research or white paper: To address gaps and promote educational equitythereisaneedtoproblematizelong-termchangeinthedigitalage.

2. A policy brief: To offer policy guidelines that will help in the design of ICT ineducationprojectsandprogrammesthataddressdigitalequitytobesustainable:

a. To emphasize the importance for third-party organizations andgovernmentstodevelopanimprovablesetofactionprinciplestoimproveoutcomes when conducting ICT initiatives in technology-poor learningenvironmentsindevelopinganddevelopedcountries.

b. Tounderstandtheessentialconditionsasabasistowardsustainability.c. To consider appropriate indicators and predictors along the way which

aredependentonthecontext.d. TorecognizeandaccommodatetheUchallenge.


Acknowledgements

A special thanks to other participants who submitted cases: Mar Mbodj (UniversitéGastonBergerdeSt-Louis,Sénégal),JulieHoffman(CurtinUniversity,Australia),AssetouKouraogo (Ministry of Education, Burkina Faso), and Allan Yuen (University of HongKong).References

Becker, H., & Riel, M. (2000). Teacher professional engagement and constructivist-compatiblecomputeruse.Report#7Teaching,LearningandComputing:1998:NationalSurvey.Retrievedfromhttp://www.crito.uci.edu/tlc/findings/report_7/startpage.htmlDutta, S., Geiger, T, and Lanvin, B. (2015). The Global Information Technology Report2015 ICTs for Inclusive Growth. World Economic Forum. Retrieve fromhttp://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Global_IT_Report_2015.pdInternational Telecommunication Union (ITU) (2015). ICT facts and figures. Retrievedfromhttp://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/Documents/facts/ICTFactsFigures2015.pdfInternational Telecommunication Union (ITU) (2014). Final WSIS Targets Review –Achievements, challenges and the way forward. Retrieved fromhttp://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/Documents/publications/wsisreview2014/WSIS2014_review.pdfMevarech, Z.R. (1997). The U-curve process that trainee teachers experience inintegrating computers into the curriculum. In D. Passey and B. Samways (Eds.),Proceedings of the IFIP TC3 WG3.1/3.5 joint working conference on Informationtechnology:Supportingchangethroughteachereducation.ChapmanandHall:London.Rogers,C.(2014).Digitalskillsandmotivationinyoungpeopleintransition.InD.PasseyandA.Tatnall,A.(Eds.),KeycompetenciesinICTandinformatics:implicationsandissuesforeducationalprofessionalsandmanagement.Heidelberg,Germany:SpringerVerlag.Tamim, R.M., Bernard, R.M., Borokhovski, E., Abrami, P. C., & Schmid, R. F. (2011).What40YearsofResearchSaysabouttheImpactofTechnologyonLearning:ASecond-OrderMeta-AnalysisandValidationStudy.ReviewofEducationalResearch,81(1),4–28.



Assessmentas,for,andofLearninginthe21stCentury

SummaryReport

MichaelSpector,UniversityofNorthTexas

DirkIfenthaler,CurtinUniversityDemetriosSampson,UniversityofPiraeusLanYang,HongKongInstituteofEducation

EvodeMukama,UniversityofRwandaAmaliWarusavitarana,SriLankaInstituteofAdvancedTechnologicalEducation

KulariLokugeDona,SwinburneUniversityKoosEichhorn,Lucasonderwijs,Netherlands

AndrewFluck,UniversityofTasmaniaRonghuaiHuang,BeijingNormalUniversity

SusanBridgesandJiingyanLu,UniversityofHongKongYouqunRenandXiaoqingGu,EastChinaNormalUniversity

ChristopherDeneen,NationalInstituteofEducation,SingaporeJonathanSanDiego,King’sCollegeLondon

Overview

Timelyandinformativefeedback(a.k.a.formativeassessment)isknowntoenhanceandexpedite learning, and it can be directly controlled by a teacher or a learning system.Whenlearningtasksinvolvecriticalthinkingandcomplexproblemsolving,determiningrelevantfeedbackforlearnersisnotsimple.Overemphasisinsomeplacesonsummativeassessments (grades, standardized test scores) and evaluations (comparative rankings,annual performance ratings) has resulted in too little emphasis on and support forformativeassessment(individualizedandconstructivefeedbackduringlearning).However, theabilityofnew technologies toprovide support for formativeassessmenthas risen considerably in recent years with the advent of intelligent agents, smartdevicesandcloud-basedresources.ThemostpromisingtechnologiesmentionedbytheNew Media Consortium and other groups include MOOCs (Massive Open OnlineCourses), SeriousGamesandGamification.Thosenewtechnologieshave theability togenerate and make use of large sets of data. Making use of big data requiressophisticated learning analytics of formative assessment data collected from manydifferent learners in a wide variety of learning situations. Moreover, formativeassessments canmotivate individual learners, help teachers adjust individual learningpaths,andinformparentsandothersofprogress.Issue


Thereisashiftinpedagogytowardsdynamicproblem-basedandinquiry-basedlearning,inpart todevelop21st century skills. Supportingeffectiveproblem-basedand inquiry-based learning requiresemphasison timelyand informative feedback to learners. Themultitude of open education resources available to support learning can only be fullyrealized when coupled with meaningful formative assessments, especially in areasinvolving critical thinking skills. Digital literacy and reasoning literacy should beconsidered basic skills and require the support of new assessment strategies andtechniques.Newformsofformativeassessmentsandevaluationsrequirenewapproaches,toolsandtechnologies. One approach is to create an open assessments repository (OAR) thatcomplements theopeneducation resources (OER) alreadypromotedbyUNESCO. Thisrepository could be used to leverage big data to support formative and summativeassessments and evaluations and could include intelligent assessment technologies toeasetheburdenonteachers.Significance

Without emphasis on formative assessment and support for new tools and an openassessmentsrepository,nothingwillchange.NewtechnologiessuchasMOOCs,SeriousGames, and Gamification will be unable to realize their full potential and impact onlearningwillbeminimal.It isnotpossibletosupportcritical thinkingand21stcenturyskillswithoutmeaningfulformative assessments. Large classrooms in developing countries present a particularchallenge, especially whenmulti-grade classrooms are involved, due to the variety oflearningneedsand learnerbackgrounds.Theneed forefficient formativeassessmentsrequires using ICT to implement and support real-time formative assessments forcomplexproblemsolvinglearningtasksandguidedinquirylearningsituations.PriorEfforts

The most promising recent advances in providing meaningful just-in-time, just-when-needed formative assessment for complex learning tasks involve a series of researchefforts in Germany and the USA and tools that were consolidated in HIMATT (HighlyIntegrated Model Assessment Tools and Technology; seehttp://www.ifenthaler.info/?page_id=318). HIMATT provides a learnerwith a problemsituationandthenpromptsthelearnertoindicate(intheformoftextoranannotatedgraph) thekey factorsand their relationships involved inaddressing theproblem.Thisproblemconceptualizationcanbecomparedtoanexpertconceptualizationorreferencemodel and analysed to indicate things for the learner to consider (seehttp://www.pirnay-dummer.de/research/comparison_measures_2011-03-30.pdf andhttps://sites.google.com/site/jmspector007/Home/selected-papers). These formativeassessmenttoolsrequirerefinementsanduser-friendlyinterfacestobeusedinface-to-faceandonlinesettings.


Promoting student engagement has become challenging in developing countries forlarge student cohorts with limited resources. A group at the Sri Lanka Institute ofAdvanced Technological Education have been experimenting with new teaching andassessingmethodologies, combining team-based learning and guided inquiry learning.This approach enables staff to provide an engaging learning experience and developcollaborative work environment representing real world situations while integratingdigitalassessments.Theabilitytoprovideimmediatemeaningfulfeedbackhasfacilitatedsignificant improvements in learning. However, substantial training and mentoring ofteachersisrequiredSincethepreviousEDUsummITin2013,theuseofinformationtechnologyinassessmenthas flourished. Increasingly ePortfolio tools are embedded within learning contentmanagement systems, providing a holistic approach to recording achievements forformativeassessmentand in linewithprofessionalstandards.Lock-downbrowsersareemerging which make a wider range of assessment styles available online. However,whether thesearemarkedautomaticallyorbyhumans, the limitationsof this contextrequireverylargecohortsforsophisticatedinformationtoolusetobecomepartoftheassessment. Moreover, ePortfolios require much human time for human orsophisticated automated tools only in their infancy. Additionally, there is an issue ofverifying that aparticular learner created theePortfolio.While theyarepromoted fortheirpotentialbenefitstoteaching, learning,assessment,andcurricula,ePortfoliosareseen as especially useful for extending and deepening assessment value beyond.However, empirical research into ePortfolio initiatives suggests the complexities andchallengesaresignificant..A research team at the Hong Kong Institute of Education recently investigated therelationshipofindividualdifferencesandformativefeedbackorientation.Factorssuchasself-efficacy and accountability were found to be associated with learning goalorientation, whereas social awareness was associated with performance goalorientation. These and additional findings indicated that studentswith a learning goalorientation aremore likely to feel usefulness of teacher feedback and feel personallyresponsibletorespondtoteacherfeedback.Whathasnotbeenexplored ishowthesefindingsmightchangewhenformativefeedbackisbeingautomaticallygeneratedbyanintelligentassessmentengine.There are particular problems involved in providing large numbers of online learnerswith timely and meaningful feedback as they progress through a series of learningactivities.ThedistributedbasiceducationprojectinIndonesiarequiredthousandsofin-service teacherswithoutdegrees to complete abaccalaureateor lose their jobs. Theyhad to do this while working. Being a full-time student while working full-time is achallenge.Thoseinvolvedwereconstantlyseekingwaystominimizesuchaheavyload.Gettingimmediatefeedbackonlearningtaskswasessentialbutextremelychallengingtoprovide.WithoutthesupportoftheInternetinremoteareas,theonlyalternativewastosend tutors to thecountryside tohelp.The lesson fromtheexperience in Indonesia isthatICTneedstobeintegratedintoformativeassessment.


Recommendations

In order for the full potential of formative assessments in the context of supportingcriticalthinking,inquirylearningand21stcenturyskills,thefirstrecommendationisthatkey policy/decisionmakers at all levels need to bemade aware of the significance offormative assessments and evaluations. The development of focused white papersclarifyingandemphasizingtheroleofformativeassessmentsandevaluationsinlearningand instruction should be developed and widely disseminated. These white papersshould contain relevant theoretical and empirical grounding and short but poignantexamples.Thenotionofincludingdigitalliteracy(skillsassociatedwithsearching,evaluating,using,modifying and creating digital artifacts) and reasoning literacy (critical thinking skills)among thebasic skills tobedeveloped inprimaryand secondaryeducation shouldbeemphasizedinthewhitepapersandotheractivitiesofthisworkinggroup(e.g.,fundingproposals). Inaddition, articulating the changingemphasis in learning fromearly (e.g.,primaryandsecondaryschoollevels)emphasisonstaticdeclarativeknowledgetoearlyemphasisondynamicproblem-solvingactivities shouldbeemphasized. Integrating theuse of small data devices in support of learning as well as in support of assessmentshouldalsobeemphasized.The historical use of assessments should be examined to determine to what extentassessments (both formative and summative) have been used to benefit a few ratherthan all learners. Issues of equity,meritocracy and social justice are, or should be, anintegralconcernwithregardtobothformativeandsummativeassessments.Big data (e.g., large sets of data with regard to learner profiles, preferences, andperformanceinavarietyoflearningsituations)hasyetfinditswayintothecreationofdynamicformativeassessmentmechanisms.Thesamecanbesaidwithregardtosmalldata (e.g., specificdatacollectedbya learner’sportableorwearabledevice),althoughexamplesofsmalldatabeingusedtocustomizesomelearningscenariosisappearinginthe formof augmented realities, especially in the areaof informal learning. Particularemphasis on tools and technologies to integrate big and small data into learning andespeciallyintoformativeassessmentshouldbeencouragedonthepartofgovernmentalfundingagencies.What isneeded inorder tomoveassessment into the21st centuryarenewtoolsandtechnologies especially well-suited for complex problem solving domains andpersonalizedlearning.Inaddition,newassessmenttoolsandtechnologiescouldthenbeused for meaningful diagnostic and cross-cultural purposes to form the basis ofinforming and improving educational systems, rather than the false competition andratheronerousenvironmentcreatedbycurrenthigh-stakestestinginsomeplaces.Insummary,therecommendationsofTWG5forvariousconstituencies,(e.g.,ministriesof education, governmental funding agencies, foundations supporting education,federal, state and local school administrators, teacher preparation programs, andeducators in general) is to take seriously educational goals that include developingeffectiveproblemsolvers,independentcriticalthinkers,andlife-longlearners–doingsothen requires that particular emphasis be placed on providing space (scaffolding and


support) for learners to explore, discover, learn frommissteps, and gradually developconfidenceandcompetenciesacrossavarietyoflearningtasksandlearningexperiences.Formative assessments are critical for the associated processes of learning to occureffectivelyandefficiently.Givennewlearningapproachesandtherealitiesoflifeinthe21stcentury,newassessmentstoolsandtechnologiesareneeded.Actions

TWG5hasdevelopedadiscussionpaperbasedonthecontentsofthispolicybriefthatwillbe included inanEDUsummITeBook. Inaddition,membersofTWG5(SpectorandGu) have already submitted a proposal to AERA to fund a meeting to create thespecifications for an Open Assessment Repository (OAR) – an open and extensibleclearinghouseofcasestudiesand formativeassessmentexemplars, instruments, tools,and technologies), especially in support of developing and assessing complex problemsolvingandcritical thinkingskills.Additional fundingproposals thatgobeyondsupportforameetingand thataimat thedevelopment, implementationanddisseminationofnew and powerful formative assessment tools are recommended;members of TWG5and others will identify and pursue relevant opportunities from a variety of sources,includinggovernmentalfundingagenciesandprivatefoundations.Members of TWG5 will develop and disseminate white papers for a variety ofconstituencies (e. policy makes, school administrators, teachers, teacher preparationprograms, etc.) that clarify and emphasize formative assessments and formativeevaluations.Thefirststepinthisprocessistoidentifythecorecontentthatwillappearin all of theTWG5whitepapers; Spectorwill take the first step in thatdirectionby1December2015,andthenaskvariousTWG5memberstoelaborateseparatepapersforthevariousconstituenciesby1March2016.Whentheentireworkinggrouphassignedoffonthewhitepapers,theywillbewidelydisseminated(targetdatefordisseminationis1April2016).TWG5 already has draft papers from various members (Deneen, Fluck, Kulari, andSpector)focusingonformativeassessment.ThesedraftpaperswillbeconsolidatedintotwopaperstobesubmittedtoKnezek(gesundheit)by15January2016forthespecialissueof Educational Technology and Society.Oneof thepaperswill focuson relevantandrecentresearchpertainingtoformativeassessmenttoolsandtechnologiesandtheotherwillfocusonthedevelopmentofaconceptualframeworkforextendingtheuseofdata(bigandsmall) intoformativeassessmentsandevaluationsinsupportofavarietyof purposes (e.g., career planning, advising, formative feedback, improving courses,curricula,andprograms,etc.).Bothpaperswilltakeintoaccountbothformalandnon-formal learning situations. The lead for the twoETSpapershas yet tobedetermined.Thegrouppreviousagreedtokeeptheorderofauthorsthesame(asreflectedabove)withanote thatallTWG5membershavecontributedequally to thesevariouspapers.However,withregardtothetwoETSpapers,aminorchangeshouldbemadetoputthelead person responsible as first author (with the same note that all have contributedaboutequally,whichhasbeenthecasetodate).Leadauthorsshouldbedeterminedby1October2015.


References

Benavot,A.(2015).Educationforallglobalmonitoringreport-2015.Paris:UNESCO.UNESCO (2015). Unleashing the potential: Transforming technical and vocationaleducationandtraining.Paris:UNESCO.Wagner, D. A. (2011). Smaller, quicker, cheaper: Improving learning assessments fordevelopingcountries.Paris:UNESCO.

Disclaimer

Theviewsandopinionshereinarethoseoftheauthorsonlyandnotofanyorganization.



CreativityinaTechnologyEnhancedCurriculum

SummaryReport

PunyaMishra,MichiganStateUniversityPetraFisser,NetherlandsInstituteforCurriculumDevelopment

DanahHenriksen,ArizonaStateUniversityNicholasReynolds,UniversityofMelbourne

With

MiroslaveCernochova,CharlesUniversityJanetCochrane,QueenslandDepartmentofEducation&Training

SueCranmer,LancasterUniversitySachaDeVelle,AustralianCouncilforEducationalResearch

MichaelHenderson,MonashUniversityLeahIrving,CurtinUniversity

EugeniaKovatcheva,StateUniversityofLibraryStudiesandInformationTechnologies,Bulgaria

PaoloTosato,Ca’FoscariUniversityofVenice

Introduction

Akey focusat theThematicWorkingGroup6onCreativity inaTechnologyEnhancedCurriculumatEDUsummIT2015inBangkok,wasonbuildinganunderstandingofareasof intersection of creativity and technology in teaching and learning, and identifyingwaysthatcreativitycanbecomemoredeeplyintegratedintotechnology-richcurriculumforteachersandstudentswithindevelopedanddevelopingcontexts.Amainpartoftherationaleforthisliesinthevitalrolethatcreativityplaysasaprincipaldriverformuchofthegrowth,development,andnew innovations thathaveoccurredthroughouthumanhistoryandsociety,aswellastheincreasingneedforittoaddressproblemsolvingandlearning in our complexworld. Contemporary technologies provide newandpowerfulwaysforindividualsandgroupsofindividualstobecreative–anditisimportanttogiveconsideration to how these opportunities fit within a 21st century framework foreducation.


TheContext

Technologyhasalteredtheworldthatweliveinatanacceleratingrateofchange.Thisrapid pace of development of new technologies has made it a challenge forimplementingconstructiveclassroomtechnology integration.Creativitycan informthisproblem,asacoreissueinteachingandlearningforthe21stcentury.Andthetwoissuesofcreativityandtechnologycanbefruitfullyconsideredinconjunction.Wecanseealotof youngpeoplewho spend time voluntarily “in intense learning as they tackle highlytechnicalpractices, including filmediting, robotics,andwritingnovelsamongahostofother activities across various DIY networks” (Kafai & Peppler, 2011, p. 89). In suchlearningsituations,studentsgobeyondprogrammingcodeortexts intraditionalways,but additionally work to create, repurpose, and remix multimodal representations ofknowledge (Jewitt, 2008). According to Spencer (2005) “the DIY movement is aboutusinganythingyoucangetyourhandsontoshapeyourownculturalidentity,yourownversionofwhateveryouthinkismissinginmainstreamculture”(p.11).Ourworld is changing, andwhile this is nothing new, the rate of change scales up inconjunction to technological growth. Recent decades have shown us an incrediblefloweringofcreativityand innovation fueledby thecapabilitiesofdigital technologies.From Google to Facebook, from cloud computing to YouTube channels, newtechnologieshavealteredandinformedhowwelive,workandconnectwitheachother(Mishra, 2012). These technology elements, when combined with the changingdemographics,socialpressuresandeconomicsofglobalization,createopportunitiesandchallenges,which creativity can speak to.Given this intertwined relationship betweencreativityandtechnologyitisunderstandablethateducators(particularlythosewhoaretechnically inclined),andothereducationalstakeholders,havesuggestedthat teachingand learning today needs to emphasize these connected issues. It is important forscholars, researchers and practitioners alike to explore the nature of the relationshipbetween technology and creativity, particularly in varied, global educational contexts.Forinstance,KafaiandPeppler(2011)speakaboutDIYcommunities,andidentifythreeessential technical practices that contribute in important ways to youths’ digitalproductionskills.Theseskillsincludecoding,debugging,andremixing.Thisisconsistentwithdiscussionsaboutaroleofcreativityinconnectionwithcomputingandparticularlywith a support schools to programming in Scratch (Brennan, Balch, & Chung, 2014).Since the nineties creative and original approaches to Informatics Education has beenhighlightedbyBlahoandKalaš(1998).These are difficult challenges, because both technology and creativity are complextopics,whichevenasstandaloneissueshaveconfoundedmanyhard-foughtattemptstofind effective approaches for integrating them into teaching and learning settings.Secondly, the ‘what’ versus ‘where’ approach, has tended to overlook thecontextualizationofITwithindevelopingcontexts.Butdespitethechallengesinherent,developingastrongerplaceforcreativityinatechnology-enhancedcurriculumisvital.


KeyIssuesandChallenges

Therearemultipleissuesandchallengesassociatedwithcreativityineducation,severalofwhicharoseinourworkinggroupdiscussionsatEDUsummIT2015.Whatiscreativity?To beginwith, it is essential to start from a sharedworking definition of a construct.SincecreativitywasthematicallynewtoEDUsummITin2015(thisbeingthefirstyearforthe “Creativity in a Technology-enhancedCurriculum” group), establishing a definitionbased on group member input was key. Multiple discussions of creativity revealed avarietyofapproachesandideasevenwithinthegroup.Inordertoworkforwardfromasharedunderstanding,we identifiedsomecoreelementsofcreative thinking/practicesthat recurred in the discussions, and that more importantly were supported byscholarship.Most definitions of creativity drawn from literature across education and psychology,focusonthefactthatcreativityisboth“novel”and“effective.”Inthissense,creativitycan be described as the production of useful solutions to problems, or novel andinteresting ideas across domains, which create products and/or artifacts and impactthinking (Amabile,1988,1996;Oldham&Cummings,1996;Plucker&Beghetto,2004;Zhou&George,2001,2003).While novelty and effectiveness or value play a role in many versions of “creativity”definitions, our definition takes this concept and builds on itwithMishra& Koehler’s(2008) concept of “wholeness”. They describe this third construct of wholeness assomethingusedinanorderedandaestheticmannerinaspecificcontext.Thereby,theworking definition for creativity used in TWG 6, is the Novel, Effective, and Wholedefinition applied byMishra&Koehler (2008). In thisway, creative ideas are not justnovelandeffective,buttheyhaveacertainaestheticsensibility,whichisconnectedtoandevaluatedwithinaspecificcontextorparadigm.Whereiscreativity?Whileourworkingdefinitionissupportedbyresearchandencompasseskeyaspectsofcreativity, we acknowledge that arriving at any shared definition of a subjectiveconstructlikecreativityischallenging.Inworkingthroughthis,itwasproposedthatitisjustasvaluabletoconsiderCsikszentmihalyi’s(1997)questionof:“Whereiscreativity?”Inthisheassertsthatcreativityexistsasaninteractionbetweentheindividual,thefield,andthedomain-asrepresentedinthediagrambelow.Asthediagram(referFigure1) indicatesthePerson,theFieldandtheDomainhavetowork together in order for something to be declared Novel, Effective & Whole. ThePersonproducesvariationthroughtheirindividualitythatthesocialorganizationofthedomain (the Field) selects or rejects variation – which in turn becomes part of theDomain – which then transmits the variation onto the next set of individuals. Thusmerely lookingattheindividualdoesnotdojusticetothecomplexprocess involvedinthinkingaboutcreativework.Suchanapproachalsoallowsustoaddressthedevelopedversusdevelopingcontextdichotomy.


_________________________________________________________________

Figure1:Person-Field-Domainandtheirinteractionstodeterminewhereiscreativity(basedonCsikszentmihalyi,1997).

Atthesummit

Our group identified three key areas of challenge where creativity should exist in atechnology-enhancedcurriculum.Thegroupbrokeintosub-groupsinordertoconsidereach of these areas of challenge. These three areas, all related to Creativity in aTechnologyEnhancedCurriculum,are:

• PolicyandCurriculum• TeacherEducationandProfessionalDevelopment• Assessment

Eachofthesewasdiscussedbythesub-groupsindependentlyandthenbroughtbacktothe larger TWG6 group for discussion and feedback. There were repeated, informal,sessionsoverthetwodays.Eachofthesesub-groupsisdefinedanddescribedbelow.


Figure2:Notesfromeachofthe3sub-groups:Assessment,Teachers&Policy PolicyandCurriculumSub-Group:

Led by Petra Fisser. Othermembers includeMichael Henderson, Sue CranmerandLeahIrving

Creativitycanbelearned.Sadly,itcannotbetaught.However,sinceitisathinkingskillitcanonlybe‘learnedbydoing’oras‘learninginaction.’Creativityinvolvesapproachestothinking rather than a set body of knowledge that can be taught. However, we canreinforceandsupportsustainedcreativitybyengagingwiththeideathatitcanbecomea ‘habitof themind’.However, thisalsomeansthattheeducationsystem/educatorsneedtobeabletorecognizeandsupportasustainedfacilitationofcreativityasahabitofthemind,andagreeuponwhatthat isandhowtodoso–somethingthatcanvarygreatlyacrosscontextsandcultures.Soessentialchallengesinvolveconvincingpolicymakers,whooftenpreferclearanswersandobjectivity,thatitisimportanttoinfusecurriculawithcreativity–anareathatcanbe subjective without one “right” answer. Additionally, a challenge lies in how toimplementsomethingascontext-drivenascreativity inwaysthatarebroadenoughtospeaktopolicyandcurricularchoicesacrossvariedsettings.


TeacherEducationandProfessionalDevelopmentSub-Group:

Led by Danah Henriksen. Other members include Janet Cochrane, EugeniaKovatcheva,andPaoloTosato

Theapproachandpedagogyusedbyteachersisoftenaprimarydriverofhowstudentsdevelop.Teacherswhomodel creativity tend to fluidly enhance, support and developthe tendency in their own students (Amabile, Conti, Coon, Lazenby, & Herron, 1996).Startingattheleveloftheteacherandclassroomisessentialtodevelopingcreativityasa habit of mind for 21st century learners. Building teaching dispositions that takeadvantage of the affordances of new tools for learning and thinking creatively isessential (in ways not possible without new technologies). But effective teaching isdifficult in itself, even without the added elements of creative and technology-savvypractices. How do we support the development of creative pedagogy, along witheffectiveuseofclassroomtechnologytosupportthe21stcenturyteacherandstudent?With teacher education programs as primary drivers of new teacher development (aswell as professional development opportunities for teachers broadly) it is essential tobuildaplatformforteachereducationprogramsthataddressescreative,technology-richapproachesandpedagogies.AssessmentSub-Group:

LedbyPunyaMishra.Othermembers includeMiroslavaCernochovaandSachaDeVelle

The arena of assessment is rife with multiple challenges which tend to present asdichotomous tensions. Several of these were identified by the assessment sub-groupwithinthecreativitygroup.Onekeytensionliesinassessmentattheindividuallevelvs.the group level. In other words, how do we get students to engage in the kinds ofcollaborativeandopen-endedproductsthatsupportcreativity,whilealsoassessingtheirindividualperformance?Another issue is in psychometric vs. process/output testing. Do we test thecharacteristics of an individual on a psychological basis, which has traditionally beensupportedbycreativityresearch?Ordoweassessbasedonthecreativityofworkandoutputs(asmayfitmoreeasilyinaclassroomsetting).Thedilemmaofprocessvs.productalsoarose,inconsideringwhetheritwouldbemoreeffectivetoevaluatechangeovertimevs.evaluatingoutput.Aproductisconcreteandmore traditionally amenable to evaluation in education, but process may be moreimportanttoteacherssinceitsrespectsthewholelearner(processmaybeidiosyncraticandplayful,whichalsobringsupanotherchallenge).Forexample,anICTapproachtendstofocusonthefinaloutputorproduct,comparedtotheArtteacherwhoisconcernedwiththeprocess.Finally, the problem of domain general vs. domain specific assessment of creativityarose, and this is anongoingproblemanddisputeamongmost creativity researchers.Evaluationbecomesmorechallengingunlesswestartfromaplaceofsolidagreementon


whethercreativityislocatedspecificallyandnarrowlywithindomains,orwhetheritisamoregeneralandextendablething.The overwhelming theme of creativity and assessment then revolves around thechallengeofnavigatingthedifferenttensionsthatplayoutintheprocessofevaluatingandassessingcreativity. For this reason, it is important thatwenot focuson justoneapproach towards assessment but rather explore a range of different and alternativeforms of assessments that would allow for the dynamic, flexible, triangulation of theconstructas itplaysout indifferent learningcontexts.Finally, there isclearlyneedforresearch that is deeply connected to these different learning contexts (which in turnexistinadifferinarangeofdimensions,formal–informal;disciplinary–trans-ormulti-disciplinaryandsoon).Recommendations

Based on the discussions over the two days the group came up with some keyrecommendationsoneachofthesethreeareas.Brieflytheseareasfollows:Policy/Curriculum

• Creativityneedstobefeaturedinpolicyatalllevels(Macro/Meso/Micro)Itisclearthatcreativityiscomplexandcanbeseenasworkingacrossallaspectsoftheteachinglearningprocess,particularlywhencoupledwiththepotentialsoftechnology. Thus it is important that educational policy needs to emphasizecreativityacrossall levels:Marco,MesoandMicro, i.e.,whetherat the levelofnational policy, state or school district-wide, or individual schools andclassrooms.

• CreativityshouldbeembeddedacrossthecurriculumCreativityisnotadomainbyitselfbutratherawayofthinkingandapproachtoproblem seeking and solving that cuts across disciplines. Thus creativity is asimportant in the sciences and mathematics as it is in the arts. This is oftenforgottenandneedstobepartofeverypolicy-makersthinking.

• Agreaterpushforresearchtoidentifymodels,andpracticesThoughcreativityresearchhasreceivedgreaterattentionrecently,thereismuchwe still do not know about instantiating it in the formal and informal learningcontexts.Clearlytherearemodelsandpracticesthatappeartowork,butmoresystematicresearchisclearlythepressingneed.

TeacherEducation/TeacherProfessionalDevelopment

• Develop Teacher Education curriculum that integrates creativity and itscomponentsacrosstheprogramCurrent teacher education curricula may give some emphasis to teachingcreatively – though even there it appears spotty at best. The other aspect ofteaching to enhance creativity in students has received even less attention.Integration of ideas related to creativity need to be across the program andcurriculum.


• Specificcourse/programsfocusingoncreativityandtechnologyEven aswe seek to suffuse a “creativitymindset” across programs of study inteacher education, we see the need for more specific courses that targetcreativity and technology and their use in the classroom teaching/learningcontext.

• Identify/usea framework that connects creativity and technology to curriculumguidelinesCurriculum guidelines are overarching structures that determine how specificcurriculaaredesigned. It is importantthatthedual-goalsofteachingcreatively,andteachingforenhancingcreativity,beincorporatedinthesebroadguidelines.

Assessment(incontextofICT)

• Recognize that assessment of creativity exists within a range of tensions/dilemmasIssuesrelatedto theassessmentofcreativityexistalonga rangeofdimensions(individual – group, process – product, domain general – domain specific etc.Thesearenotproblems tobesolvedbut ratheressential tensionsordilemmasthatneedtoberesolvedinacontextsensitivemanner.

• Alternativeformsofassessment-dynamic,flexiblefortriangulation

It is essential thatwenot focus on just one approach towards assessment butrather explore a range of different and alternative forms of assessments (i.e.openendedversusmoreconstrained tasks) thatwouldallow for thedynamic,flexible, triangulation of the construct as it plays out in different learningcontexts.

• EvidencebasedresearchfromtheclassroomFinally, there is clearly need for research that is deeply connected to thesedifferent learning contexts (which exist in a differ in a range of dimensions,formal–informal;disciplinary–trans-ormulti-disciplinaryandsoon).

Conclusions

Overall the TWG6 on Creativity in a Technology Enhanced Curriculum at EDUsummIT2015inBangkokhadaproductivetwodaysofmeetings.Theexpectationisthatwewillbe followingupwithmultipleconferencepresentations,aswellas journalarticlesandpolicyrelateddocumentsalongtimelinelaidoutbytheorganizers.

Creativity is an important topic and needs greater attention by the educationalcommunity.Weseethismeetingasafoundationforhigh-impactworkinthefuture.


References

Amabile,T.M.(1988).Amodelofcreativityandinnovationinorganizations.Researchinorganizationalbehavior,10(1),123-167.Amabile,T.M.,Conti,R.,Coon,H.,Lazenby,J.,&Herron,M.(1996).Assessingtheworkenvironmentforcreativity.AcademyofManagementJournal,39(5),1154-1184.Blaho, A., & Kalaš, I. (1998). SuperLogo: Learning by Developing. Somerset, UK:Logotron.Brennan,K.,Balch,C.,&Chung,M.(2014).CreativeComputing.HarvardGraduateSchoolofEducation.Retrievedfromhttp://scratched.gse.harvard.edu/guide/files/CreativeComputing20140806.pdf.Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1997). Creativity: Flow and the Psychology of Discovery andInvention,NewYork:HarperPerennial.Jewitt,C.(2008).Multimodalityandliteracyinschoolclassrooms.ReviewofResearchinEducation,32,241–267.Kafai,Y.B.,&Peppler,K.A.(2011).Youth,Technology,andDIY:DevelopingParticipatoryCompetencies in CreativeMedia Production.Reviewof Research in Education, 35, 89-119.Koehler,M.J.,&Mishra,P.(2008).IntroducingTPCK.InAACTECommitteeonInnovationandTechnology(Ed.),Handbookoftechnologicalpedagogicalcontentknowledge(TPCK)foreducators(pp.3-29).NewYorkandLondon:Routledge.Mishra,P.(2012).Rethinkingtechnology&creativityinthe21stcentury:Crayonsarethefuture.TechTrends,56(5),13-16.Oldham, G. R., & Cummings, A. (1996). Employee creativity: Personal and contextualfactorsatwork.AcademyofManagementJournal,39(3),607-634.Spencer,A.(2005).DIY:Theriseoflo-ficulture.London,England:MarionBoyars.Plucker,J.,&Beghetto,R.(2004).Whycreativityisdomaingeneral,whyitlooksdomainspecific, andwhy the distinction does notmatter. In R. Sternberg, E. Grigorenko,& J.Singer (Eds.), Creativity: From potential to realization (pp. 153-167). Washington, DC:AmericanPsychologicalAssociation.Zhou,J.,&George,J.M.(2001).Whenjobdissatisfactionleadstocreativity:Encouragingtheexpressionofvoice.AcademyofManagementjournal,44(4),682-696.Zhou, J., & George, J. M. (2003). Awakening employee creativity: The role of leaderemotionalintelligence.TheLeadershipQuarterly,14(4),545-568



IndicatorsofQualityTechnology-EnhancedLearningandTeaching

SummaryReportNancyLaw,UniversityofHongKong

DaleNiederhauser,WestVirginiaUniversityLindaShear,SRIInternational

RhondaChristensen,UniversityofNorthTexas

With

EstherCare,UniversityofMelbourneDavidSmith,KaplanUniversityJonghwiPark,UNESCOBangkokBentAndresen,AarhusUniversity

HansvanBergen,UtrechtUniversityofAppliedSciencesDeirdreButler,DublinCityUniversity

AllanChristie,BlackboardJillDownieandTaniaBradley,CurtinUniversityLouiseStarkey,VictoriaUniversityofWellington


TechnologyEnhancedLearning(TEL)hasbecomeincreasinglyimportantontheagendasof education policymakers, school leaders and teachers around theworld. The policylevelrationaleforemphasizingTELisnotonlytoimprovelearningoutcomes,buttoalsotransform the learning process to foster new capabilities that are needed for life andwork in the 21st century. UNESCO (2008) published a document that puts forward apolicy framework thatalignsnationalgoalsandcurriculum ineducationaswell as therole of ICT in teaching and learning with the state of economic development.Technology-enhanced learning and teaching (TEL&T) should help students developdigital literacy and enable them to use technology appropriately for communication,collaborationandproblem-solving.Indicators of quality TEL&T are one of the two new themes proposed by UNESCO(Bangkok) for introduction in EDUsummIT 2015. The context for TWG7’s work onindicators is to serve the need for fit-for-purpose indicators as part of theimplementationofthePost-2015EducationAgenda.WhilethedetailsofthisAgendaarestill to be finalized by theUN summit in September 2015, the themewill beTowardsinclusive and equitable quality lifelong learning for all, as announced in the IncheonDeclarationinMay2015.OneoftheintendedoutcomesoftheWorkingGroup(TWG7)isto develop a policy brief on this theme and present it to the Asia-Pacific MinisterialForumonICTinEducation(AMFIE)atitsnextmeeting.


An important goal of TWG7 is to provide advice on and suggestions for indicators ofquality TEL&T as an integral part of the set of global indicators that could be used tomonitortheimplementationofthepost-2015educationagenda.Theseindicatorscouldbe expanded and embedded into thematic, regional and national indicators to servetheir respectivemonitoring and evaluationpurposes. Theprimary focus is on learningoutcome indicators, but selected input and process indicatorswill also be included tohelpusunderstandandimprovethelinkbetweenpolicy,policyimplementation,outputsandoutcomes.Indicators for quality TEL&T are important not only at the national and global level.Stakeholdersatindividual,classroom,schoolandsub-national(e.g.districtandproject)levelswouldalsoneedindicatorstoprovidefeedbackandguideimprovementrelativetoTEL&T implementation and enhancement. As suggested by World Education ForumTechnicalAdvisoryGroup(2015), theseglobal indicatorsshouldguidedevelopmentof,andbeincorporatedinto,indicatorsusedatnationalandlowerlevelsofmonitoringandevaluation.Thispracticewouldpromotedevelopmentofacorpusofindicatorsthatarecontextuallyrelevant.Itwouldalsoallowcomparabilityofindicatorsacrossinstitutions,projects,districts,etc.,whichwillfacilitatemultiplelevelsandunitsofcomparison,andpotentiallyprovideopportunitiesforbetterknowledgebuildingandpeerlearningaboutTEL&T.Issues

Theworkinggroupstartedwiththreebasicissues:WhatisqualityTEL&T?WhyareindicatorsforqualityTEL&Timportant?Whattypesofindicatorsareneeded?Asummaryofthediscussionsareincludedbelow.WhatisqualityTEL&T?Itwasgenerallyagreedthattheprimaryfocusshouldbeonpreparinglearnersforlifeinthe21stcentury.Theterm“21stcenturyskills” isconsideredtobetoonarrow,aswell-being in the 21st century is not simply amatter of skills or competence, and requireswell-roundedsocio-emotionalandmetacognitivematurity.Itwasalsoagreedthatdigitalliteracy, critical thinking, creativity, collaboration and communication are necessarycapacities for the 21st century. Further, it was generally agreed that learner-centeredapproaches to pedagogywould be necessary for students to develop socio-emotionalandmetacognitivematurity,andthecapacitiesidentifiedforsuccessinthe21stcentury.WhyareindicatorsforqualityTEL&Timportant?ItisobviousthatweneedappropriateindicatorsforqualityTEL&TforustounderstandwhathasbeenachievedthroughTEL&T.OutcomesofTEL&Timplementationdependonhow it is implementedand theassociated conditions.Anappropriate setof indicatorsshouldalsohelpusmonitorandunderstandhowtheimplementationisprogressing,andto signal problems before they become serious. Ideally,wewouldwant to be able tomakeadjustmentstotheimplementationplanand/ormakestrategicchangestopolicyandpracticebasedonthefeedbackwereceivefromtheindicators.Wewouldalsowantour assessment of implementation, policy and practice to influence the nature and


developmentoftheindicatorsweuse.Forthis,weneedindicatorsthatarecoherentandare connected to an appropriate conceptual framework so that these will help usconstructbettertheoriesforTEL&T.Insummary,qualityTEL&Tshouldservetohelpusachievefourprimarypurposes:

• AssesswhathasbeenachievedthroughTEL&Timplementation;• IdentifywhatmattersmostinourplanningandimplementationofTEL&T;• Monitor progress and development in the most crucial aspects of TEL&T, and

providefeedbackontheinnovationprocessforcontinuousimprovement;and• Support theory building, policy andpractice in promoting change& innovation

forqualityTEL&T.Whattypesofindicatorsareneeded?In the discussion, it was agreed thatmost of the existing indicators related to TEL&Tmeasure conditions for learning, such as the technology infrastructure, teachers’qualifications, etc. The most important type of indicators, which are also seriouslylacking,are indicators formeasuring learningoutcomesthatare important for the21stcentury.Anotherimportantcategoryof indicatorsis indicatorsforlearninginteractions(sometimes referred to as learning processes). People do not learn simply frombeingexposed tomedia or technology. Learning results from interactions and engagement.While learning interactions may take place between learners and digital learningresources, deep or complex learning often requires deeply engaging learninginteractionsamonglearnersandbetweenlearnersandteachersthatcannotberealizedthrough the adoption of digital technologies alone. The quality of students’ learningoutcomes depends critically upon the classroom environment, pedagogy, lesson andlearning activity designs that together constitute the core determinants of TEL&Tinteractions. We need indicators that can capture and link the variety of learninginteractionstotheobservedlearningoutcomesiftheseindicatorsaretohelpusimprovethe design and implementation of TEL&T. In summary, four types of indicators areneeded:

• Learningoutcomes• Conditionsforlearning• Learninginteractions(i.e.learningprocessindicators)• TEL&T use (how technology is used to support the totality of learning

interactions)Asystemic,multilevelframeworktoconceptualizequalityindicatorsforTEL&T

Thereisarichbodyofliteraturethatdemonstratestheneedforpedagogical,curricularand assessment innovations to accompany TEL&T if we are to achieve the desiredoutcomes (e.g., Voogt & Knezek, 2008). Consequently, TEL&T initiatives need to besupportedby strategies andmechanisms for teacher learning, leadership learning andorganizational learning. Further, the biggest challenge to the implementation of ICT-enabled learning innovation is scalability (Kampylis, Law,& Punie, 2013; Dede, 2006).Studiesonchange, innovationandsustainabilityallpointtotheneedforchangetobemultilevel(Blamire&Gerhard,2009;Law,Kampylis,&Punie,2015).Atthelowestlevel


of the education ecosystem are students learningwithin classroom contexts,which ishierarchically nested within schools and within systems (Davis, 2015). There isagreement that the changes taking place at each level impacts, and provides feed-forward/feedbackonthechangeprocessestakingplaceattheotherlevels.Whilemostmultilevelmodelsofchangeonlycharacterizechangeattheclassroomlevelas learning and changes at the other levels are seen as implementation process orfactors,Law(2015)proposedaparsimoniousmultilevellearningmodeltounderpintheconceptualizationofthemanyindicatorsinvolvedinTEL&T,asrepresentedinFigure1.(The listof indicators in the table isonlyan incomplete,preliminaryset for illustrativepurposes.) There are four types of indicators at each level: conditions for learning,learning interactions,e-learninguse,and learningoutcomes.The learningoutcomesateach levelarestrongly influencedbythestatusoftheotherthreesetsof indicatorsatthat level. For example, the red arrows indicate how student learning outcomes aredirectlyinfluencedbythelearninginteractionsande-learninguseofstudents,whicharein turn influenced by conditions of learning for the student such as school ICTinfrastructure,pedagogyandassessmentpractice.Theworkinggroupfoundthisconceptualframeworkusefulforprovidingacoherentandconsistent set of interacting indicators at all four levels, and in delineating theinteractionsoftheindicatorsatdifferentlevels.Forexample,theblueupwardarrowsinFigure 1 illustrate some of the support relationships across levels: teachers’ learningoutcomes (TPACK, learning and assessment design expertise) directly link to thepedagogy and assessment practice as experienced by their students as conditions forlearning; national schemes to support joint-school e-learning innovation projects (assystem-level learning outcomes) provide opportunities for learning interactions at theteacherlevel;andstaffappraisalcriteria(asschool-levellearningoutcomes)isoneoftheconditions influencing teacher learning. It shouldbenoted thatwithin this framework,the learning outcomes at the school and system levels are outcomes of the decision-making process at the respective levels. By conceptualizing the decision-makingprocessesaslearningprocesseshighlightstheiterative,continuouslyimprovablenatureoftheseprocesses.Further,onecouldalsodrawdownwardarrowsinFigure1toshowshow indicators at the hierarchically lower levels (e.g., student and teacher levels) canserve to inform increasingly systemic decision-making for policy and practice at thehigher(e.g.,schoolandsystem)levels.


Figure 1.A diagrammatic representation of the interrelationship among the differentlevelsofindicators.

Members further pointed out that even in developing countries, a great deal of datacollectionoccurswithahighlevelofdetail,butthepurposeforcollectingdatamaynotbeclear.TheproposedconceptualframeworkforqualityTEL&Tservesto:(1)focusthepurposeofdatacollection;(2)guidethedefinitionsandcriteriaforlevelsofqualityforthe indicators; (3) delineate how the indicators feed forward and feed back on thedifferent levels of the system; (4) provide a mechanism for indicators to go to thestakeholdersatappropriatelevels—notjusttopolicymakers;and(5)checkandimprovealignmentacrosslevelsintheprocessofTEL&Timplementation.

Challenges

Anumberofchallengeswere identified inrelationtothethemeoftheworkinggroup.Theseinclude:• Identifyingindicatorsthataremeaningfulandhaveclearimplicationsforpolicyand

practice;• Identifyingindicatorsthatprovidefeedbackforrefinementanddecisionmakingand

informprogress;• Communicatingindicatorsclearlytodifferentaudiencesandacrosslevels;• Goingbeyondthemeasurementofinput;• Creatingoperationalizableandvalidmeasuresfortheindicators;and• Creatingqualityindicatorsthatareapplicableacrosscontexts.

Further challenges and feedback were collected by the group leaders when theypresented the outcomes of the group discussion to the other working groups. Thesefurtherchallengesandcritiquesinclude:


• Linking indicators fromone level to another and seeinghow indicators interact isnotsimple;

• Developingindicatorsthataremeaningfulacrosscountrycontexts;• Including indicators at the system level that go beyond educational policy (e.g.,

partnershipswithdifferentstakeholders,theroleofcommunities,etc.);• Addressinginformallearningintheconceptualframework;and• Developingindicatorsforcyber-wellnessanddigitalcitizenship.Recommendationstoresearchers,policymakers,andeducationalpractitioners

• Forpolicymakersand funders,we recommend thatmeasures shouldbe taken toidentify indicators thatmatter (at all levels, and including indicators of processesand learning outcomes as well as inputs) and establish mechanisms for theseindicatorstoinfluencepolicyanddecision-making.

• For educators, institutional leaders and practitioners, we recommend the use ofindicatorstoprovidefeedbackandensurealignmentacrosscontexts,processesandoutcomeswithinalevel;andtoprovidefeedbackonalignmentacrosslevels.

• For researchers, we recommend (1) development and validation of indicatormeasuresthatarevalid,reliableandeasilyimplemented,and(2)establishmentandcurationofarepositoryofindicatormeasures.

Actionplan

The group agreed to work on the following publications within the time scheduleindicated:1. Completeby5October2015anextendedabstract(~4pages)fortheWorkingGroup

discussions in Bangkok, for compilation into a summary EDUsummIT 2015publicationforfastpublicrelease.

2. Completeapaperontheindicatorsframework,rationale,etc.byJanuary2016.3. Produce a policy brief (4 pages), which would be an outcome of the EDUsummIT

fromTWG7,andwouldpossiblyalsobepresentedtoAMFIE.4. Different group members may self-organize to develop papers on examples to

illustratehowtheframeworkcanbeused.TheycantargetthevariousTEL&Trelatedconferences such as SITE http://site.aace.org/conf/, ECER http://www.eera-ecer.de/ecer-2015-budapest/, and CITE Research Symposiumhttp://citers2015.cite.hku.hk/.

References

Blamire,R.,&Gerhard,P.(2009).Learningfromeachother:TheP2VprojectonICTandschoolchange.Brussels:EuropeanSchoolnet.Davis,N.(2015).Co-evolvingecologiesofeducationandtechnology:Increasingubiquityandequity?InvitedKeynoteatInternationalConferenceonOpenandFlexibleEducation,16-17July2015,HongKong.Dede, C. (2006). Scaling up: Evolving innovations beyond Ideal settings to challengingcontextsofpractice. InR.K.Sawyer(Ed.),Cambridgehandbookofthelearningsciences(pp.551-566).Cambridge,England:CambridgeUniversityPress.


Kampylis, P., Law,N.,&Punie, Y. (Eds.). (2013). ICT-enabled innovation for learning inEuropeandAsia:Exploringconditionsforsustainability,scalabilityandimpactatsystemlevel.Luxembourg:PublicationsOfficeoftheEuropeanUnion.Law,N.(2015).Workinggroup7:Indicatorsofqualitytechnology-enhancedlearningandteachingdiscussionpaper-draft1.DistributedtoEDUsummIT2015TWG7memberson18Aug2015.Law,N., Kampylis, P.,& Punie, Y. (2015). Pathways to enhancemultilevel learning forscaling up systemic ICT-enabled learning innovations: Lessons from 7 European andAsian cases. InC. K. Looi& L.W. Teh (Eds.),Scalingeducational innovations (pp. 197-223).Singapore:Springer.World Education Forum Technical Advisory Group (2015). Technical advisory groupproposal: Thematic indicators to monitor the post-2015 education agenda.http://www.uis.unesco.org/Education/Documents/tag-proposed-thematic-indicators-post2015-education-agenda.pdfUNESCO. (2008). ICTCompetencyStandards forTeachers:Policy Framework. Retrievedfromhttp://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0015/001562/156210e.pdfVoogt, J.,&Knezek,G.A. (2008).International handbookof information technology inprimaryandsecondaryeducation.NewYork:Springer.



DigitalCitizenshipandCyberwellness

SummaryReport

PaulResta,UniversityofTexasatAustin

MarsaliHancock,iKeepSafeMichaelSearson,KeanUniversity

JongwonSeo,KoreaEducation&ResearchInformationServiceCristianaMattosdeAssumpcao,ColegioBandeirantes,Brazil

AnthonyJones,UniversityofMelbourneVaibhavJadhav,ESTABLISH,UNESCOBangkok

LeelaPradhan,UniversityofKathmanduEthelValenzuela,SEAMEOINNOTECH,thePhilippines

CoreenFrias,CentralLuzonStateUniversityPadoongArrayavinyoo,SuanDusitRajabhatUniversity,Thailand

AzraNaseem,AgaKhanUniversity,PakistanDoritOlenik-Shemesh&TaliHeiman,OpenUniversityofIsrael

EvaDobozy,CurtinUniversityTerezaTrencheva,StateUniversityofLibraryStudiesandInformationTechnologies,

BulgariaJoyceMalyn-Smith,EducationDevelopmentCenter,USA

DevashishDuttaandHyunjeongLee,UNICEFMelTan,UNESCOBangkok

YuhyunPark,NanyanTechnologicalUniversity


The proliferation of digital technologies has yielded enormous benefits to individuals,groupsandinstitutions,locally,nationallyandinternationally.Besidestheneweconomicand social opportunities that these new networked technologies offer, there is anemerging awareness of dangers and threats to individuals, groups and institutionsrelatedtounequalaccess,unethicaluse,suchascyberbullyingandcybercrime,suchasidentity theft,hacking,viruscreationanddistribution,abuseand radicalisation, just tonameafew.Mostdisturbingly,childrenareparticularlyvulnerableandoftentargetsofcybercrime,trafficking,abuseandradicalisation(SecretaryofStatefortheHomeOffice,2010). In response to these challenges, countries, such as Australia, aremapping thecyberthreatenvironmentandinSeptember2015,theAustralianCyberSecurityCentrehas released its first unclassified report describes the range of cyber adversariestargetingAustraliannetworksandofferingmitigationadvice (AustralianCyberSecurityCentre,2015).Itisvitalthattheglobalcitizenryisempoweredtobetterunderstandtheopportunities, but also the threats that the new realities of globalising networkedtechnologiesoffer.


Thetopicof“digitalcitizenship”and“cyberwellness”isgainingmomentumallovertheworld.Therearealotoforganizationsandindividualsthatareworkingonthistopic.Inresponse tomanyanddifferentdiscussions, supportingUNESCO’svisionof “transformlives through education” (Incheon Declaration Education 2030, 2015) and recognisingthe potential for opportunity, but also harm of the growing use of digital networkedtechnologies in people’s lives the EDUsummit working group (TWG 8) accepted theinvitation to submit a white paper on issues related to Digital Citizenship and CyberWellbeing.

ThiswhitepaperbeginsbyexploringthemeaningandconnectionofDigitalCitizenship(DC) and Cyber Wellness (CW). Conceptual clarity is vital for the development ofeffectivepolicydecisionandstrategicalignmentandbuy-inandownershipofchangeisvirtuallyimpossibleinapolicyenvironmentthatlacksconceptualclarity(Dobozy,2013).

WhatisDigitalCitizenship?

Citizenship is all about belonging and acknowledging that citizens have rights andresponsibilities.InthewordsoftheBritishsociologistT.M.Marshall(1950):

Citizenshipisastatusbestowedonthosewhoarefullmembersofacommunity.Allwhopossess the statusareequalwith respect to the rightsanddutieswithwhich the status is endowed. There is no universal principle what determineswhat those rights and duties shall be, but societies in which citizenship is adeveloping institution create an image of an ideal citizenship against whichachievementcanbemeasuredandtowardswhichaspirationcanbedirected(pp.149-150).

Citizenshipalso involvesresponsibilitiesasamemberof thecommunity,suchasbeingethicalandrespectfulofothers.So,althoughthetermdigitalcitizenshiphasbeenusedinreferencetotheuseoftechnologytosupportsocialparticipationwithinacountryortheworld,morerecently,thetermhasbeenusedtofocusonthenormsofappropriate,responsiblebehaviorwithregardtotechnologyuse(DigitalCitizenshipInstitute,2015).

WhatisCyberWellness?

TheSingaporeanMinistryofEducation(2014)definedCyberWellnessasfollows:

Cyberwellness refers to thepositivewell-beingof internetusers. It involvesanunderstandingofthenormsofappropriate,responsiblebehaviourwithregardtotechnology use as well as knowledge, skills, values and attitudes on how toprotect oneself and other internet users in the cyber world. It looks into thepositivephysical andpsychosocialwell-beingof students in theiruseofmobileandinternettechnologies(p.1).

Giventheseoverlappingdefinitions,thepurposeofTWG8groupDigitalCitizenshipandCyberWellness is toexamine the impactofdigitalnetworked technologiesanddigitalmedia on civic life andmakes recommendations to assist policymakers in developingpolicies and frameworks that allow for safe and secure digital life of individuals andgroupsasdigitalcitizensintheexistingandemergingdigitallandscape.


Challenges

ThefollowingchallengeswererecognisedbyTWG8:

1. Inconsistentandunequalaccess tosafeandsecurenetworkedtechnologies(systemsandinfrastructure)inandoutofschool

2. Increasinglossofprivacyandlackofcontroloverone’sdata,especaillywhenchildrenareinmandatedschoolenvironments

3. Lack of awareness of potential positive and negative impact of digitaltechnologies

4. Lack of informed and ethical online personal, group and institutionalbehaviouranduseofdata

5. Lack of policies that employ a systems approach to prevention, detection,interventionandresponse

6. Lackofprofessionalstandardsrelatedtodigitalcitizenshipandcyberwellnessforpre-andin-serviceteachers

7. Policydecisionsareoftendrivenbyhighprofilestoriesnotbyevidence-basedresearch

8. Children are particularly vulnerable and often targets of cybercrime,trafficking,abuseandradicalisation

Recommendations

The following recommendationsweremade to address the identified challenges by avariety of stakeholders including researchers, policy makers, and educationalpractitioners:

1. Developsafeandsecurenetworked(systemsandinfrastructure)technologiesinandoutofschool,whichimpactchildren’andeducators’livesinandoutofschool

2. Develop and enforce personal, group and institutional data privacy policies,skillsandcompetencies

3. Implement specific actions to raise awareness of the potential positive andnegativeimpactofdigitaltechnologies

4. Develop education policies and frameworks that encourage ethical onlinebehaviouranduseofdatabyindividuals,groupsandinstitutions

5. Developpolicies that incorporatea systemsapproach to cyberwellness thatincludesprevention,detection,interventionandresponse

6. Develop, support and assess professional standards relating to digitalcitizenshipandcyberwellnessforpre-andin-serviceteachers


7. Address digital citizenship and cyber wellness supported by evidence-basedresearch,whilebeingsensitivetohighprofilemediastories

8. Collaborate with national and international agencies to prevent, detect andintervenetoinstancesofcybercrime,trafficking,abuseandradicalisation

ActionPlan

This report concludes with an Action Plan developed during EDUsummit 2015. It isintended to (a) strengthen our international collaboration, and (b) outline the futureactionsofTWG8.

Publish:Synthesize2-dayworkingsessioninto4pageWhitePaper

• Write4-pageUNESCOPolicyBrief• Develop“academic”paperforpublication• submitanarticleforUNESCOBangkok’sICTinEducationNewsletter(September)• linktootherresearchactivities/publications

Present:atnationalandinternationalconferences:e.g.,SITE,AERA,ASCILITE,ATE,ICEM,WAIER,WEF,QED,NPSE

• Open-source,mediapresentations,TheConversation(http://theconversation.com)

• COPITUStrategyRegionalWorkshop24-25October• FOSIconferenceWashingtonDCNovember18• UNESCO’sAsia-PacificMinisterialForumonICTinEducation

ContinueWorkingasGroup(andwelcomeothers):

• CreatetheDigitalCitizenshipNetwork• e.g.,awiki-typespace

DisseminatethroughSocialMedia

• blogs• microblog• linkedinarticle

DelivertheUNESCOpolicyguidelinesandpolicybrieftogovleaders

• leverageexistingnetworks(ITU,IntelASPolicyGroup,WEF,Africanorg,etc)

Catalogexistingprogramsandtoolkitsforeducatorsblogs

• Acquire and organize information on digital citizenship and cyber wellnesspolicies,initiativesandresources

Finally,itisimportanttonotethattheworkofotherTWGsmaybuildonorsupplementourwork.


References

Dobozy, E. (2013). The leveraging influence of strategic alignment: What constitutesEarly Childhood in current Australian policy debates? Australian Journal of EarlyChildhood,38(3),112-117.AustralianGovernment(2015).TheAustralianCyberSecurityCentreThreatReport2015.Canberra, ACT: Australian Cyber Security Centre. Retrieved fromhttps://www.acsc.gov.au/publications/ACSC_Threat_Report_2015.pdfDigitalCitizenship Institute(2015). DigitalCitizenship:UsingTechnologyAppropriately.Retrievedfromhttp://www.digitalcitizenship.net/DC_Institute.htmlMarshall,T. (1950).Citizenshipandsocialclass:AndOtherEssays.Cambridge,England:CambridgeUniversityPress.Secretary of State for the Home Office (2010) Cyber Crime Strategy. Retrieved fromhttps://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/228826/7842.pdfSearson,M., Hancock,M., Soheil, N.,& Shepherd, G. (2015). Digital citizenshipwithinglobalcontexts.EducationandInformationTechnologies,20(4),729-740.SingaporeanGovernment(2014).2014SyllabusCyberWellnessSecondary.Singapore:MinistryofEducation.Retrievedfromhttp://www.moe.gov.sg/education/syllabuses/character-citizenship-education/files/2014-cyber-wellness.pdf



Curriculum-AdvancingUnderstandingoftheRolesofComputerScience/Informaticsinthe

Curriculum

SummaryReport

MaryWebb,King'sCollegeLondon

AndrewFluck,UniversityofTasmaniaMargaretCox,King’sCollegeLondon

CharoulaAngeli-Valanides,UniversityofCyprusJoyceMalyn-Smith,EducationDevelopmentCenter,USA

JokeVoogt,UniversityofAmsterdamJasonZagami,GriffithUniversity

Introduction

At EDUsummIT 2015 it was argued that the major rationale for including ComputerScience as a subject in the K-I2 curriculum are economic, social and cultural. Theeconomic rationale rests not only on the need for a country to produce computerscientiststosustainacompetitiveedgeinaworlddrivenbytechnologybutalsoontherequirement for Computer Science-enabled professionals in all industries to supportinnovation and development. The social rationale emphasises the value in society ofactive creators and producers rather than passive consumers of technology. Suchcapabilityprovidespeoplewithpower to lead, createand innovatewithin societyandtherefore isalsoan issueofentitlementto"powerfulknowledge"(Young,2013)givingindividualsopportunities tochoosetheir role insociety.Thecultural rationalerestsonenablingpeopletobedriversofculturalchangeratherthanhavingchangeimposedbytechnologicaldevelopments.In thisbriefpaperweexplain firstly thebackground to recentcurriculumchangesandthe global context in which they are taking place. Then we explain the issues andchallenges forestablishingandmaintaining theroles forComputerScience incurriculaforK-12.Nextwepresentsolutionsandrecommendationsforpolicymakers,educators,industrialpartnersandresearchersandfinallyweoutlineouractionsfortakingforwardthesesolutions.Backgroundandcontext

Previous EDUsummITs examined broadly the skills needed in a world driven bytechnology.EDUsummIT2011identifiedtheimportanceofnewcompetenciesfor21st-century learning, including digital literacy, in the curriculum (Voogt, Erstad, Dede, &


Mishra, 2013). EDUsummIT 2013 examined computational thinking as a critical set ofthinking skills of equal importance to literacy and numeracy in the education of all(Voogt,Fisser,Good,Mishra,&Yadav,2015).ThisimportanceofcomputationalthinkingwashighlightedbyWing(2006),especiallyinthecontextofComputerScience,althoughtheconceptisgenerallyattributedtoPapert(1980,1996)whoexaminedcomputationalthinking inrelationto learningmathematicsandothersubjects.SubsequentlyBarrandStephenson’s (2011)work led to anoperational definition publishedby theComputerScienceTeachersAssociation(CSTA)incorporatingthefollowingcorecharacteristics:• Formulatingproblemsinawaythatenablesustouseacomputerandothertoolsto

helpsolvethem;• Logicallyorganizingandanalyzingdata;• Representingdatathroughabstractionssuchasmodelsandsimulations;• Automatingsolutionsthroughalgorithmicthinking(aseriesoforderedsteps);• Identifying,analyzing,andimplementingpossiblesolutionswiththegoalofachieving

themostefficientandeffectivecombinationofstepsandresources;and• Generalizing and transferring this problem solving process to a wide variety of

problems(http://csta.acm.org/Curriculum/sub/CurrFiles/CompThinkingFlyer.pdf).

The recent curriculum developments that formed the impetus for the current reportincludeareviewoftheinformationandcommunicationstechnology(ICT)curriculumintheUK(TheRoyalSociety,2012)thatidentifiedaneedformajorreformandsimilarcallsin theUnitedStates (Wilson, Sudol, Stephenson,&Stehlik,2010;Cuny,2012),Canada(http://cacsaic.org/HowAlbertaGotCS ) throughout Europe (Joint Informatics Europe&ACM Europe Working Group on Informatics Education, 2013), Australia(http://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/technologies/digital-technologies/rationale )andNewZealand(Bell,Andreae&Robins,2012).TheseinitiativesemphasiserefocusingComputing/ ICT education to incorporate Computer Science as the underlying subjectdiscipline. In these countries where reform was recommended, curricula that hadpreviously contained Computer Science had become weakened or diverted by otherpriorities. In other countries, such as Israel and Cyprus, Computer Science has beenretained since its emergence in the 1980s. However even in countries that havemaintained Computer Science, rationale for its presence in curricula and curriculathemselvesvary(Hazzan,Gal-Ezer,&Blum,2008;Webb,Davis,Reynolds,&Sysło,2015)andareworthyofscrutiny.

Theeconomic imperative isa strongdriverbehind the recent refocusingonComputerScienceintheUSAandEurope(JointInformaticsEurope&ACMEuropeWorkingGroupon Informatics Education, 2013; The Royal Society, 2012;Wilson et al., 2010). At thesametimemanyeducatorsseethe importanceofpeopledevelopingunderstandingofthe capabilities and potential of technologies and being able to engage in“computational thinking”andother formsof thinkingpromotedbystudyingComputerScience, such as systems thinking, in order to support learning and create informedcitizens. This new thinking and understanding is not the digital literacy whoseimportanceisalreadywell-establishedbutasetofskills,understandingandthinkingthatcanbedevelopedbyengagingwithandunderstandingComputerScience;understandinghow computers work and designing and creating computer-based solutions, includingthroughprogramming.


Keychallengesandissues

Table 1 summarises themain challenges and their solutions identified at EDUsummIT2015 and indicates recommendations for policymakers (P), educators (E), industrialpartners (I) and researchers (R). Evidence of these challenges and justification forsolutionsisoutlinedbelow.

1. LackofunderstandingofComputerScience/Informaticsasanacademicdiscipline

ThenatureofComputerScienceasanacademicdiscipline is relatively invariantacrosscultures, and a common definition 1 is widely accepted. However developments inComputerScienceandconsequenttechnologicalinnovationsarerapid,makingitdifficultfor people to understand their importance and relevance. This rapid change alsomitigatesagainstclearunderstandingoftheimportanceofComputerScienceintheK-12curriculum.

2. AneedforComputerScience/Informatics2asadistinctsubject

ThemajorrationalesforincludingComputerScienceintheK-12curriculumasadistinctsubjectwereoutlinedearlier inthispaperaswerethecharacteristicsofcomputationalthinking.Our recommendation for promoting computational thinking through learningComputerScienceisbasedontheunderstandingthatcomputationalthinkingisintegraltoproblem-solvingapproachesinComputerScience(Wing,2006).Furthermore,workingwithconceptsfromComputerScienceandprogramming,whichisnotusuallytaughtinother curriculum subjects, provide very practical ways to engage with computationalthinkingevenforyoungchildren, forexample,programmingarobotic toy (suchasthe"Beebot")tofollowforward/left/rightmovementstoreachadestination.Computationalthinking and other skills developed in Computer Science, including programming, canthenbeappliedtoothercurriculumareas(seeforexampleBarr&Stephenson,2011).

3. Computationalthinkingisdifficulttoimplementinschools

Asarguedabove,computationalthinkinginvolvesdevelopingwaysofsolvingproblems,designing systems, and understanding human behaviour that draws on conceptsfundamentaltocomputerscience.However,large-scalestudiesofcomputerpracticesinschools(e.g.,Voogt&Knezek,2008;Plomp,Anderson,Law,&Quale,2009)andearlierreviews (Cox & Abbott, 2004) have shown that within the current school curriculumteachersdonothavesufficienttimenorexpertisetoimplementcomputationalthinking.TheadditionofComputerScienceasadistinctsubjectwouldleadtoexpertteachersinthefieldandthecurriculumtimeforcomputationalthinkingtobecomeanintegralpartofeverychild’seducation.

1ThisisadefinitionofComputerScience,whichiswidelyaccepted:“thescientificandpracticalapproachtocomputationandits 2Informatics,whichisatermusedwidelyineducationinEurope,incorporatesComputerSciencebutisbroaderandencompassestheentiresetofscientificconceptsthatmakeinformationtechnologypossible(JointInformaticsEurope&ACMEuropeWorkingGrouponInformaticsEducation,2013).


4. Thedevelopmentof Computer Science/Informatics school curriculum is impededbyinsufficientempiricalevidence

Defining a Computer Science appropriate curriculum structure and sequencing ischallenging because there is less evidence of how students develop understanding ofComputer Science compared with other subjects. However there are epistemologicalconsiderationsandconstraintswhichcanguidecurriculumdesign(Winch,2013;Young,2013).Furthermore,lessonsfromcurriculumtheoryandfromexperiencesofcurriculumdesigninothersubjectssuggestthatweneedtolivewithuncertaintyandtoaccepttheneed for a dynamic and continually renegotiated curriculum (Webb, 2014) and at thesame time continue to research how students develop their understanding. Inconjunctionwithspecificationofcurriculumstructureandsequencingthereisaneedforclear learningoutcomes,assessmentsandstandards forComputerScience/Informaticsthroughout K-12. Such clear specification should help to alleviate the problems ofconfusionthathavecontributedtothefailureof integratedsolutions for incorporatingComputerScience/Informaticsintothecurriculum(Wilsonetal.,2010).Thereforegiventheadditionalchallengesofteacherprofessionaldevelopmentwerecommendthata)inprimaryeducation,whileitmaywellbeintegratedacrossthecurriculuminitsdelivery,Computer Science is identified as a subject area with specialist support and b) insecondary schools Computer Science is taught as a separate subject by specialistteachers.

5. Previous ICT curricula deliveries poorly prepared students for ComputerScience/Informaticsinfurtherandhighereducationorprofessionalemployment

Mostcountrieshavehadnationalprogrammesandpoliciesformanyyearsregardingtheincorporation and teaching of ICT in schools (Plomp et al., 2009). However, formanyyears national curricula, in many countries, have mainly focused on teaching basiccomputer skills such as word-processing, using email, drawing a graphics program,communicationusingEmail andChat and searching for informationusing the Internet(ibid.) and not the teaching of computational thinking which is a very important 21stcentury skill. A Computer Science curriculum would have this subject as its core andensureallschoolpupilsdevelopedcompetenceinit.

6. Integrating Computer Science/Informatics across other subjects in the schoolcurriculumhasbeenineffective

In spite of enormous growth in the number of computers in schools andwidespreadaccesstotheInternet,aninternationalstudyofpoliciesandpracticesofusingICTacrossthecurriculumin37countries(Plompetal.,2009)hasconcludedthattheintegrationofICT use into other school subjects such as science and mathematics, let alone theteachingofComputer Science,hasbeen spasmodic and inmany schoolsnon-existent.ForexampleintheUnitedStatesin2009,aleaderintechnologicalinnovation,“ManyofAmerica’s 54 million elementary and secondary school students remain largelyunaffected by existing technological infrastructure. Large numbers of teachers andstudentsrarelytouchacomputer”.(Andersen&Dexter,2009,p.707).

7. Teachers’ professional development in a newly introduced ComputerScience/Informaticssubjectisachallengeinqualityandquantityformanycountries

With the shift from ICT across the curriculum incorporated by teachers of a range ofdifferent curriculum subjects to a requirement for schools to deliver a CS/Informatics


curriculum there has been an urgent need to train existing and new teachers in thissubject. To date, in most developed and developing countries there are insufficientspecialistcomputingteacherstoteachthiscurriculuminallschools(Webb,2014).

8. Identifying and allocating the additional resources for teaching ComputerScience/Informaticsisachallenge

The challenge of providing appropriate resources for teaching Computer Scienceobviouslyvariesbetweencountries(Plompetal.,2009)buttherearewaysofteachingmany elements of Computer Science without using computers e.g. the "unplugged"approach(Bell&Newton,2013)whichcanbeengagingforstudents.Howevertherearepossibilities for new software resources for teaching Computer Science enablingimproved or accelerated learning of difficult concepts. This is particularly evident inlearning programming, which is generally regarded as difficult, but developments oftoolsforvisualisingprogramming,forexample,canimprovelearningprovidedteachersunderstand theirpedagogical significance (seeBen-Ari,2013 fora review).Thus itwasagreedthatresourceprovisionshouldnotbeabarriertointroducingComputerScienceinto the curriculum but making available a good range of resources and ensuringteachersareabletousethemefficientlyshouldbeanultimategoal.

Table1

Challenges and Solutions for Advancing Understanding of the Roles of ComputerScience/InformaticsintheCurriculum

Challenge Solution/RecommendationtoP,E,I,R

1.Lackofclearunderstanding(outsidethe field of Computer Science) ofComputer Science/Informatics as anacademicdiscipline.

(a) Adopt a globally agreed statement ofComputerScience/Informaticsasadisciplineinitsownright(P,I,R,E).(b) Articulate the nature, importance andrelevance of Computer Science/Informatics tosocietyandeducation(P,I,R&E).

2. A need for ComputerScience/Informatics as a distinctsubject in school curricula iscontroversialandpoorlyunderstood.

Disseminateandcommunicateaclearrationaletodifferent stakeholders about the need to haveComputerScience/Informaticsasadistinctsubjectinschoolcurricula(P,I,R&E).

3. Computational thinking, a corecomponent of ComputerScience/Informatics, is considered tobe important in21stcenturyskills,butdue to its complexity, it is difficult toimplementinschools.

Promote computational thinking through themeans of a Computer Science/Informaticscurriculum, which aims at making computationalthinkingcommonplace(P,R&E).

4. The development of ComputerScience/Informatics school curricula isimpeded by insufficient empiricalevidence of student learning in orderto support content definition andsequencing.

Design Computer Science/Informatics curriculabasedonacontentanalysis,andthencontinuetoresearch students’ learning difficulties as well astheeffectsofdifferentpedagogicalapproaches.(E&R).


5. Previous ICT curricula deliveriespoorly prepared students forComputer Science/Informatics infurther/higher education orprofessionalemployment.

Facilitate better smart partnerships betweeneducation systems and industry/professionalassociations.(E&I)

6. Integrating ComputerScience/Informatics across othersubjects in school curricula has beenineffective.

Identifyclearlearningoutcomes,assessmentsandstandardsforComputerScience/Informatics. (E, I,P&R)

7. Teacher professional developmentin a newly introduced ComputerScience/Informatics subject is achallenge in quality and quantity formanycountries.

a) EncouragemoreComputer Science/Informaticsgraduatestobecometeachers.(P,I&E)b) Add a Computer Science/Informaticsspecialisation to pre-service training for primaryschoolteachers.(P&I)c) Make Computer Science/Informaticsprofessional learning a requirement for periodicteacherre-accreditation/licensing.(P)d) Schools need resource allocations to freeteachers to undertake the professional learningand preparation for a new ComputerScience/Informaticssubject.(P)

8) Identifying and allocating theadditional resources for teachingComputer Science/Informatics is achallenge.

(a)SomeofComputerScience/Informaticscanbetaught without computers. But computersespeciallymobiledevicescanenhancethelearningexperience.(P,E,I&R)(b)Teachertrainingneedstoprovideskillsinusingtheavailable resources in themostefficientway.(E)(c) Identify, and if not available, commissionteaching support materials in mother-tonguelanguageespeciallyforyoungerstudents(P,E,I).

Key:Policymaker(P),Educator(E),Industrypartners(I),Researcher(R)

While the order of challenges shown in Table 1 represents a logical progression forconsideringcurriculumrationaleanddesign,theorderofpriorityanddifficultywillvaryacross contexts. For example, currently teacher professional development is a majorchallengeforthosecountriesthatareintroducingorre-introducingComputerScience.

Critical for global communications about these challenges is the issue of varyingterminologyusedindifferentcountries.Figure1offersamappingofsuchdiversityandthepositionoftheelementsofcomputing-relatedtermsinrelationtotheconventionalschoolcurriculum.


< --------------------------------------Conventionalschoolcurriculum---------------------> NewSubjectMothertonguein locallanguage

Art Geography

History

Mathematics

Religion

Science

Sport

ComputerScience/InformaticsComputing/DigitalTechnologiesComputingand associatedtheoriesstudied as aseparatesubjectk-12

IT/ICT - the applications and connectivity used by students to enhance learning in allsubjectsInformation Technology - the hardware and operating systems operated by people ineducationalcontexts.Figure1.Computing-relatedtermsinrelationtotheconventionalschoolcurriculum.Further issues that were addressed by other EDUsummIT working groups and arerelevant to understanding of the roles of Computer Science/Informatics in theCurriculum include: 1) the interrelationships between curricula, pedagogy andassessment; 2) the relationship between formal and informal learning; 3) the need totakeaccountofinformallearninginassessment.Anotherissue,atafinergrainedlevelofdetail, that concerns policy makers and educators, is the choice of programminglanguagesforlearning.Weagreedthatitistheproblemsolvingprocessesanddesignofalgorithms that should take precedence over the learning of specific programminglanguages. However it was also agreed that program implementation, testing anddebugging is essential and the choice of language affects learning opportunities andpedagogy. Furthermore the predominance of English as the basis for programminglanguagesmirrors thewider tensionbetween schooling in a child’s own language andtheimportanceofaccessinginternationalmaterial.Actionplan

Theworkinggroupwill:

1. Elaborateadetailedresearchpaperon“ArguingforComputerScienceintheSchoolCurriculum”bybuildingonthisshortpaperandonresearchfrompastEDUsummITsand the International Handbook for Information Technology in Primary andSecondarySchools(Voogt&Knezek,2008)andthematicworkinggroups;

ComputationalThinking

DigitalLiteracyOperationalskillsMediaLiteracyDigitalCitizenshipCyberwellness




2. Develop a UNESCO Policy Paper on Advancing Understanding of the Role ofComputerScienceintheCurriculum;

3. Create two further research papers to address challenges and issues raised in thispaperona)the“Challengesforspecifyingstructureandsequence intheComputerScience curriculum: the interrelations between resource issues and pedagogicalapproaches”;andb) “DefiningPedagogicalContentKnowledgeneeded forprimaryandsecondaryteacherstoteachComputerScience”;

4. DisseminateoutcomesatvariousconferencesincludingWERAatAERA2016andthenextEdusummit2017;and

5. Informnationalgovernmentsofthefindingsandrecommendations.

References

Anderson,R.E.&Dexter,S. (2009).NationalPoliciesandPracticeson ICT inEducation:United States. In T. Plomp, R.E. Anderson, N. Law, & A. Quale (Eds.), Cross-NationalInformationandCommunicationTechnology:PolicesandPracticesinEducation(pp.697-715).Charlotte,NC:InformationAgePublishing.Barr, V., & Stephenson, C. (2011). Bringing computational thinking to K-12: What isinvolved andwhat is the role of the Computer Science education community? .ACMInroads,2(1),48-54.Bell,T.,Andreae,P.,&Robins,A.(2012).ComputerScienceinNZHighSchools:TheFirstYearoftheNewStandards.InL.A.S.King,D.R.Musicant,T.Camp,&P.Tymann(Eds.),Proceedings of the 43rd ACM technical symposium on Computer Science Education,Raleigh,NC,USA(pp.343–348).NewYork:ACM.Bell, T., & Newton, H. (2013). Unplugging Computer Science. In D. M. Kadijevich, C.Angeli&C.Schulte(Eds.),Improvingcomputerscienceeducation(pp.66-81).NewYork,London:Routledge.Ben-Ari, M. (2013). Visualisation of programming. In D. M. Kadijevich, C. Angeli & C.Schulte (Eds.), Improving Computer Science education (pp. 52-65). New York, London:Routledge.Cox,M. J., & Abbott, C. (Eds.). (2004). ICT and attainment – a review of the researchliterature.FullReport.London:BectaCoventry/DfES.Cuny, J. (2012). TransformingHigh School computing: A Call to Action.ACM Inroads,3(2),32-36.Denning,P.J.(2007)ComputingisaNaturalScience.ACMCommunication,50(7),13-18.Hazzan, O., Gal-Ezer, J., & Blum, L. (2008). Amodel for high school computer scienceeducation:thefourkeyelementsthatmakeit!SIGCSEBulletin,40(1),281-285.


Joint Informatics Europe & ACM Europe Working Group on Informatics Education.(2013).Informaticseducation:Europecannotaffordtomisstheboat:ReportofthejointInformaticsEurope&ACMEuropeWorkingGrouponInformaticsEducation.Papert,S.(1980).Mindstorms:children,computers,andpowerfulideas.BasicBooks,Inc.Papert,S.(1996).Anexplorationinthespaceofmathematicseducations. InternationalJournalofComputersforMathematicalLearning,1(1),95-123.Plomp, T., R.E. Anderson, Law,N.&Quale, A. (2009). Eds.Cross-National InformationandCommunicationTechnology:PolicesandPracticesinEducation.Charlotte.NC:InformationAgePublishing.TheRoyalSociety. (2012).Shutdownorrestart?Thewayforwardforcomputing inUKschools.London:TheRoyalSociety.Voogt, J. & Knezek, G. (Eds.) International Handbook of Information Technology inPrimaryandSecondaryEducation.Berlin,Heidelberg,NewYork.Springer.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.Voogt, J.,Fisser,P.,Good, J.,Mishra,P.,&Yadav,A. (2015).Computational thinking incompulsory education: Towards an agenda for research and practice. Education andInformationTechnologies,20(4),715-728.Webb,M. E. (2014, July 1st – 4th, 2014).Considerations for the design of Computingcurricula. Paper presented at the KEYCIT 2014 –Key Competencies in Informatics andICT,UniversityofPotsdam,Germany.Webb,M.,Davis,N.,Katz,Y.J.,Reynolds,N.,&Sysło,M.M.(2015July1st-3rd,2015).Towardsdeeperunderstandingof the rolesof CS/Informatics in the curriculum, VilniusUniversity,Lithuania.Wilson, C., Sudol, L. A., Stephenson, C., & Stehlik,M. (2010).Running on Empty: TheFailure to Teach K-12 Computer Science in the Digital Age. Association for ComputingMachinery&ComputerScienceTeachersAssociation.Winch, C. (2013). Curriculum Design and Epistemic Ascent. Journal of Philosophy ofEducation,47(1),128-146.Wing,J.(2006).Computationalthinking.CommunicationsoftheACM,49(3),33-36.Young, M. (2013). Overcoming the crisis in curriculum theory: a knowledge-basedapproach.JournalofCurriculumStudies,45(2),101-118.


Acknowledgements

Thanksto:

1. ContributorstoEDUsummIT2015discussionpaperonwhichthispaperdrew:YousraChtouki,AlAkhawaynUniversityinIfrane,Morocco;NikiDavis&TimBell,UniversityofCanterbury,Christchurch,NewZealand;YaacovJKatz, ilMichlala-JerusalemAcademicCollegeandBar-IlanUniversity,Israel;NicholasReynolds&Dianne P. Chambers, The University of Melbourne, Australia; and Maciej M.Sysło,UniversityofWrocławandUMK,Toruń,Poland.

2. AllattendeesofEDUsummIT2015forreviewandsuggestions.


Appendix1:EDUsummIT2015Steeringcommittee

GwangJoKim SummitHost UNESCOJillDownie SummitHost CurtinUniversityJonghwiPark SummitAdvisor&AMFIELiaison UNESCOKwok-WingLai SummitCo-Chair UniversityofOtagoDavidGibson SummitCo-Chair CurtinUniversityKinshuk Editor,EducationalTechnology AthabascaUniversityJokeVoogt Founder&ProgrammeAdvisor UniversityofAmsterdamGeraldKnezek Founder&ProgrammeAdvisor UniversityofNorthTexasMargaretCox Founder&ProgrammeAdvisor King’sCollegeLondonTammieBurke SummitFacilitator CurtinUniversity


Appendix2:TWGParticipantsTWG1:SmartpartnershipsParticipantsattendingEDUsummITDeirdreButler(DublinCityUniversity)AminaCharania(TataTrusts&TataInstituteofSocialSciences,India)NikiDavis(UniversityofCanterbury,Convenor)MargaretLeahy(DublinCityUniversity,Leader)CathyLewin(ManchesterMetropolitanUniversity,Leader)AveMejia(UNESCOBangkok)HasnizaNordin(UniversitiUtaraMalaysia)DavorOrlec(IJSJožefStefanInstitute,Slovenia)ParticipantsnotattendingEDUsummITVanessaChang(CurtinUniversity)OlaErstad(UniversityofOslo,Leader)OlatzLopez-Fernandez(CatholicUniversityofLouvain,Belgium)BenDanielMotidyang(UniversityofOtago)TWG2:AdvancingmobilelearninginformalandinformalsettingsParticipantsattendingEDUsummITRowlandBaker(SantaCruzCountyOfficeofEducation,USA,Leader)LindaFang(TemasekPolytechnic,Singapore)KimFlintoff(CurtinUniversity)FeralKhaddage(DeakinUniversity,Convenor)ImmoKortelainen(TampereUniversityofAppliedSciences,Finland)YiddaMarcial(UniversidadCasaGrande,Ecuador)WolfgangMuller(UniversityofEducationWeingarten)LucilaPerez(UniversidadCasaGrande,Ecuador)BarryQuinn(King’sCollegeLondon)AukenTungatarova(UNESCOBangkok)DoloresZambrano(UniversidadCasaGrande,Ecuador)ParticipantsnotattendingEDUsummITCathieNorris(UniversityofMichigan,Leader)ElliotSoloway(UniversityofNorthTexas,Leader)TWG3:Professionaldevelopmentforpolicymakers,schoolleadersandteachersParticipantsattendingEDUsummITPeterAlbion(UniversityofSouthernQueensland,Convenor)TonyBrandenburg(ISTE)PaulD’Souza(SomaiyaCollegeofEducation&Research,India)AlonaForkosh-Baruch(TelAvivUniversity,Leader)MartinLevins(ArmidaleSchool,Australia)LayChengTan(UNESCOBangkok)JoTondeur(GhentUniversity,Leader)


MunFieTsoi(MFR-Training&Consultancy,Singapore)NicosValanides(UniversityofCyprus)JohnWilson(BuraphaUniversity,Thailand)ParticipantsnotattendingEDUsummITShiyamaEdirisinghe(NationalInstituteofEducation,SriLanka)AnhNguyenNgoc(NationalInstituteofEducation,VietNam)SarahPrestridge(GriffithUniversity)TWG4:AddressinggapsandpromotingeducationalequityParticipantsattendingEDUsummITManalYazbak-AbuAhmad(SakhninCollege,Israel)MironBhowmik(UNESCOBangkok)DianaGross(GlobalCitizenEducate)ThérèseLaferrière(UniversitéLaval,Canada,Convenor)DonPassey(LancasterUniversity)JanetPrice(UniversityofTasmania)MiriShonfeld(KibbutzimCollegeofEducation,TechnologyandtheArts &MOFET,Israel,Leader)ParticipantsnotattendingEDUsummITJulieHoffman(CurtinUniversity)AssetouKouraogo(MinistryofEducation,BurkinaFaso)MarMbodj(UniversitéGastonBergerdeSt-Louis,Sénégal)AllanYuen(UniversityofHongKong)TWG5:Assessmentas,for,andoflearninginthe21stcenturyParticipantsattendingEDUsummITChristopherDeneen(NationalInstituteofEducation,Singapore)KulariLokugeDona(SwinburneUniversity)KoosEichhorn(Lucasonderwijs,Netherlands)XiaoqingGu(EastChinaNormalUniversity)RonghuaiHuang(BeijingNormalUniversity)JonathanSanDiego(KingsCollegeLondon)MikeSpector(UniversityofNorthTexas,Convenor)AmaliWarusavitarana(SriLankaInstituteofAdvancedTechnologicalEducation)ParticipantsnotattendingEDUsummITSusanBridges(UniversityofHongKong)DirkIfenthaler(CurtinUniversity,Leader)JiingyanLu(UniversityofHongKong)EvodeMukama(UniversityofRwanda)YouqunRen(EastChinaNormalUniversity)DemetriosSampson(UniversityofPiraeus,Leader)LanYang(HongKongInstituteofEducation)


TWG6:CreativityinatechnologyenhancedcurriculumParticipantsattendingEDUsummITMiroslaveCernochova(CharlesUniversity,CzechRepublic)JanetCochrane(QueenslandDepartmentofEducation&Training)SueCranmer(LancasterUniversity)SachaDeVelle(AustralianCouncilforEducationalResearch)PetraFisser(NetherlandsInstituteforCurriculumDevelopment,Leader)MichaelHenderson(MonashUniversity)DanahHenriksen(ArizonaStateUniversity,Leader)LeahIrving(CurtinUniversity)EugeniaKovatcheva(StateUniversityofLibraryStudiesandInformationTechnologies,Bulgaria)PunyaMishra(MichiganStateUniversity,Convenor)PaoloTosato(Ca’FoscariUniversityofVenice)ParticipantsnotattendingEDUsummITSusanHopper(UniversityofNorthTexas) DonKrug(UniversityofBritishColumbia)TimPatston(GeelongGrammarSchool)NicholasReynolds(UniversityofMelbourne,Leader)TWG7:Indicatorsofqualitytechnology-enhancedteachingandlearningParticipantsattendingEDUsummITBentAndresen(AarhusUniversity,Denmark)TaniaBroadley(CurtinUniversity)EstherCare(UniversityofMelbourne,Leader)RhondaChristensen(UniversityofNorthTexas,Leader)AllanChristie(Blackboard)JillDownie(CurtinUniversity)PieterHogenbirk(OdinoEducationalManagement,Netherland)NancyLaw(UniversityofHongKong,Convenor)DaleNiederhauser(WestVirginiaUniversity,Leader)JonghwiPark(UNESCOBangkok)LindaShear(SRIInternational,Leader)DavidSmith(KaplanUniversity)LouiseStarkey(VictoriaUniversityofWellington)HansvanBergen(UtrechtUniversityofAppliedSciences)ParticipantsnotattendingEDUsummITRosaMariaBottino(ItalianNationalResearchCouncil)DianneChambers(UniversityofNotreDame)PeggyErtmer(PurdueUniversity)JutimaMethaneethorn(LampangRajabhatUniversity,Thailand)KerynPratt(UniversityofOtago)PeterTwining(OpenUniversity,UK)ShirleyMCYeung(HangSengManagementCollege)SarahYounie(DeMontfortUniversity)


TWG8:DigitalcitizenshipandcyberwellnessParticipantsattendingEDUsummITEvaDobozy(CurtinUniversity)DevashishDutta(UNICEF)MarsaliHancock(iKeepSafe,Leader)HyunjeongLee,(UNICEF)JoyceMalyn-Smith(EducationDevelopmentCenter,USA)YuhyunPark(NanyangTechnologicalUniversity)PaulResta(UniversityofTexas,Convenor)MichaelSearson(KeanUniversity,Leader)MelTan(UNESCOBangkok)TerezaTrencheva(StateUniversityofLibraryStudiesandInformationTechnologies,Bulgaria)ParticipantsnotattendingEDUsummITPadoongArrayavinyoo(SuanDusitRajabhatUniversity,Thailand)CristianaMattosdeAssumpcao(ColegioBandeirantes,Brazil)CoreenFrias(CentralLuzonStateUniversity)TaliHeiman(OpenUniversityofIsrael)AnthonyJones(UniversityofMelbourne)VaibhavJadhav(ESTABLISH,UNESCOBangkok)AzraNaseem(AgaKhanUniversity)DoritOlenik-Shemesh(OpenUniversityofIsrael)LeelaPradhan(UniversityofKathmandu)JongwonSeo(KoreaEducation&ResearchInformationService)EthelValenzuela(SEAMEOINNOTECH,thePhilippines)TWG9:Curriculum-AdvancingunderstandingoftherolesofCS/InformaticsinthecurriculumParticipantsattendingEDUsummITCharoulaAngeli-Valanides(UniversityofCyprus)MargaretCox(King’sCollegeLondon,Leader)AndrewFluck(UniversityofTasmania,Leader)JoyceMalyn-Smith(EducationDevelopmentCenter,USA)JokeVoogt(UniversityofAmsterdam)MaryWebb(King'sCollegeLondon,Convenor)JasonZagami,(GriffithUniversity,Australia)


Appendix3:EDUsummIT2015Programme


EDUsummIT2015SummaryReport

EDUsummIT 2015 Summary Report · TECHNOLOGY ADVANCED QUALITY LEARNING FOR ALL EDUsummIT 2015...

Documents

Transcript of EDUsummIT 2015 Summary Report · TECHNOLOGY ADVANCED QUALITY LEARNING FOR ALL EDUsummIT 2015...