Critical Review and Analysis of the Issue of
“Skills, Technology and Learning”
Final Report
Dr. Jennifer Jenson, Associate Professor
Dr. Nicholas Taylor, Post-doctoral Researcher
Stephanie Fisher, Research Assistant
Faculty of Education, York University
Table of Contents
Section 1: Executive Summary ................................................................ 3
1.1. Introduction............................................................................... 3
1.2. How has “21st century skills, technology and learning” been defined in
educational policy and research? .......................................................... 3
1.3. Trends and themes: An overview .................................................... 4
1.4. Student achievement and instructional practice: An overview ............... 5
Section 2: What are the major themes and trends in relation to 21st century skills,
technology and learning? ....................................................................... 7
2.1. Open source technologies.............................................................. 7
2.2. Assistive and adaptive technologies ................................................ 8
2.3. Engaging parents ........................................................................ 8
2.4. Digital naifs? ............................................................................. 9
2.5. Computers in schools: (Still) underused ...........................................11
2.6. Environmental Impact of ICT ........................................................12
Section 3: What, if any, are the impacts of skills, technology and learning on
student achievement and instructional practices? .......................................13
3.1. Student achievement: missing the mark...........................................13
3.2. Instructional practice .................................................................16
Section 4: Conclusion...........................................................................19
Works Cited by Section.........................................................................20
Section 1. Executive Summary.............................................................20
Section 2: What are the major themes and trends in relation to 21st century
skills, technology and learning? ...........................................................20
Section 3. What (if any) are the impacts of skills, technology and learning on
student achievement and instructional practices?....................................24
Appendix A: Methodology......................................................................29
Appendix B: Interim Report ...................................................................30
3
Section 1: Executive Summary
1.1. Introduction
“Twenty-first century skills, technology and learning” is a term used to signal
educational change in policies and practices, and has been widely and loosely defined
in terms of the needs of the ‘next generation’ of learners. This report examines
current educational research, policies, and where possible, on the ground practices of
teachers and learners within this broad framework.
Drawing on published research, policy reports, and grey literature associated with 21st
century skills, technology and learning1, we provide a critical analysis of the issues
facing educational reform in the 21st century, addressing in particular the following
two questions:
1) What are the major themes and trends in relation to 21st century skills,
technology and learning?
2) What, if any, are the impacts of skills, technology and learning on student
achievement and instructional practices?
Before addressing these questions in detail, we begin with a discussion of the ways in
which 21st century skills, technology and learning has been generally defined in policy
documents and by educational researchers.
1.2. How has “21st century skills, technology and learning” been defined in
educational policy and research?
This is a new century, with new demands on education, including the intensive and
extensive demands of moving from a print-based culture to a digital culture,
continued massification of education in general, and the pressing need for global
competitiveness in a post-industrial, knowledge-based economy. Twenty-first century
learning is broadly conceptualized as learning that is supported through and enabled
by the use of the broad range of Information and Communications Technologies (ICT)
that are an increasing part of everyday life, such as those for communication, social
networking, and even surveillance. Generally, 21st century learning signals an
integrated approach to skills, technology and learning that recognizes that computerbased
devices are a central and critical part of contemporary life and that knowledge
of them is key to both education and employment.
Specifically, these skills include, and are referred to as the “4 Cs” (ISTE, 2007; OECD,
2009; Partnership for 21st Century Skills, 2009):
• Creativity and Innovation;
1 Please see Appendix A: Methodology for a description of our process in scanning, compiling and
analyzing literature around 21st century skills, technology and learning.
4
• Communication;
• Critical Thinking and Problem Solving; and
• Collaboration.
These are viewed as skills that are required to live, function in and contribute to a
21st century “knowledge society”, and as such cut across conventional subject areas.
They are not always or necessarily ICT-dependent (Annetta et al., 2010; OECD, 2009).
The core issue remains that however defined, 21st century skills are deemed necessary
to work, live and learn today. For the purposes of this report, ICT are understood as
key to teaching and learning today.
1.3. Trends and themes: An overview
In addition to ICT-enabled curriculum and teacher professional development to
support teaching and learning in a 21st century context2, a number of other trends and
themes can be identified from research published since 2005. Here we offer a brief
overview of the trends and themes of particular relevance to current educational
reform.
The trends listed here are not related to the use of specific technologies in support of
teaching and learning, but are rather broader developments across educational
contexts. Each involves and engages a range of different ICT.
Trend 1: Open source technologies
There is an ongoing shift at the level of many classrooms, boards, and in some cases
districts, towards open source, open-access technologies as cost-saving measures.
This movement also tends to include opening up previously closed networks so
students can connect their own devices to school-based intranet and wireless
networks.
Trend 2: Adaptive and assistive technologies
One of the most significant and noticeable applications of ICT in classrooms has been
in the use of adaptive and assistive technologies to support differently-abled
students. In fact, research in this area provides one of the clearest links between ICT
use and student achievement.
Trend 3: Engaging parents
Educators and educational administrators are turning to the internet, cell phones, and
other technologies to increase parental engagement, allow for closer parental contact
with teachers, and encourage teacher involvement in the everyday lives of their
students.
Along with these trends, this report also addresses ongoing issues and significant
2 For an overview of how curriculum and teacher professional development are viewed interjurisdictionally
through policy, see Appendix B: Interim Report.
5
silences in the research that we examined with regards to ICT in support of 21st
century learning.
Theme 1: Digital naifs?
There continues to be in much of the research we examined a careless and undertheorized
use of the term ‘digital native’ to signal ubiquitous student understanding
of all things digital. Cutting through this rhetoric, many studies point to the ‘digital
divides’ that still persist in ICT use, between male and female students as well as
teachers; between students in urban and rural settings; and between relatively
affluent student populations and those less fortunate.
Theme 2: Computers in schools - (still) underused
There is an ongoing but under-reported disconnect between the massive spending
devoted to digital technologies in schools, and their persistent under-use in
classrooms, despite claims that the ‘next gen’ of tech-savvy educators are more
inclined to integrate technologies into their teaching.
Theme 3: Environmental impact of ICT
This report addresses a significant silence in both policy frameworks and guidelines in
ubiquitous computing programs (for instance, 1:1 device initiatives), as well as in
related research: the absence of policies and practices that carefully and
meaningfully address the environmental impact and sustainability of ICT in schools
(e.g. how computers are recycled and what are the hidden costs to the environment
to their wide-scale, ongoing use)
1.4. Student achievement and instructional practice: An overview
In this section, we summarize research on the impacts of 21st century skills,
technology and learning on student achievement and instructional practice, and
acknowledging the challenges of assessing these impacts. We address the lack of
direct evidence at a macro-scale3 (within or across jurisdictions) that links ICT
integration to more effective instructional practice and/or higher student
achievement, and we consider some of the reasons why we lack evidence. One such
reason is that because technologies are utilized as just one of many tools for teaching
and learning, their effects on student achievement are often difficult to isolate and
measure. As well, standardized assessments of conventionally-conceived learning
outcomes often do not ask, or indeed enable, students to deploy ICT-related skills. As
a result, improvements in student achievement attributable to educational uses of ICT
may be present but not yet identified or measured.
Having said that, there is contextual and persuasive evidence, on a smaller scale, that
links student achievement to technology use. More often though, the localized and
small-scale projects we compiled and analyzed link ICT to student engagement rather
3 By macro-scale research, we mean studies that collect evidence and report on the state of education
at a jurisdictional level.
6
than achievement. There is an increasing recognition that educators and schools need
to employ digital technologies, not because there is necessarily a link to traditional
forms of how student achievement is measured, but because technologies are
increasingly a part of children’s lives in a 21st century society.
At the level of instructional practice, the integration of 21st century skills, technology
and learning has not yet been addressed in a systematic way in either pre-service or
in-service teacher education. Numerous studies identify this as one primary reason for
the ongoing under-use of ICT in schools.
7
Section 2: What are the major themes and trends in relation to 21st century skills,
technology and learning?
This section examines the themes and trends we identified as being particularly
relevant to 21st century skills, technology and learning. Rather than focus this
overview on the specific emerging technologies that are receiving a lot of attention in
formal education at the moment, we identify the more comprehensive themes and
trends that cut across efforts at educational reform at all levels, from classroom to
district to jurisdiction.
2.1. Open source technologies
California’s recent decision to implement open source textbooks is the latest widelypublicized
development in the debate around whether, how and to what extent
schools can and should adopt open source technologies (Timmer, 2009).
The driving motivation behind California’s decision is the lower costs associated with
open source textbooks compared to conventional textbooks. Advocates of open source
technology in education,4 however, point to pedagogical as well as economic benefits:
students have access to a growing repertoire of specialized, context-specific
applications to support individuated and independent learning (Derringer, 2009;
Hebpurn & Buley, 2006; Marson, 2006; Pfaffman, 2008), and can become involved in
an emerging ‘prosumer’ culture of collaborative knowledge-sharing (Araya, 2008).
Detractors point to the hidden costs of open source software, the perceived lack of
technical support in comparison with proprietary software, the (current) lack of
curriculum-approved resources (Derringer, 2009), and the related perception that
because they are ‘open’, they are somehow less legitimate (de Castell & Jenson,
forthcoming).
Several studies suggest that these concerns will be alleviated, and the barriers to
further adoption of open source, open access tools removed, as the economic benefits
become more apparent, particularly in times of fiscal hardship (Marson, 2006;
Pfaffman, 2008), and as technology administrators in schools and districts become
more comfortable with the quality and reliability of resources (Derringer, 2009). The
drive to adopt open source resources has been given an added push in North America
by the US Department of Education’s most recent (2010) National Educational
Technology Plan, which calls on K-12 schools to follow the lead of higher education in
embracing open source software for administration, instruction, and learning (p. 57).
4 Organizations advocating for—and providing—open source software for K-12 schools include K-
12OpenSource.com (at http://www.k12opensource.com/) and the Consortium for School Networking
(CoSN)’s K-12 Open Technologies (at http://www.k12opentech.org/).
8
2.2. Assistive and adaptive technologies
One area of research that does demonstrate a direct impact of technology on student
achievement5 is in the support of students with learning disabilities. Assistive
technologies utilized by these students are devices meant to scaffold students'
learning (Marino, Sameshima & Beecher, 2009), and include screen readers, speechto-
text software, and technology-based scaffolds, such as digital outlines of text or
question prompts embedded in technology-based interfaces. Such devices can
maximize educational opportunities for differently-abled students by promoting
access and participation while also improving learning outcomes (Alper &
Raharinirina, 2006; Michaels, Rose, Meyer, & Hitchcock, 2005). Numerous studies with
this student population have concluded that assistive technologies have had positive
effects on learning outcomes (Lange, McPhillips, Mulhern, & Wylie, 2006; Okolo,
2005), critical thinking skills (Twyman & Tindal, 2006), motivation (Lange, Mulhern &
Wylie, 2009), and test-taking strategies (Lancaster, Lancaster, Schumaker, & Deshler,
2006). Moreover, assistive technologies can mediate students' performance through
question prompts, writing scaffolds, and procedural steps that lead to a strategic plan
for accomplishing goals and objectives (Englert, Wu, & Zhao, 2005). The use and
integration of tools such as screen readers and speech-to-text software (and even
more unconventional tools like video games and online ‘virtual’ worlds; see Cheng &
Ye, 2010) in education is critical to providing all students with the knowledge and
skills necessary for active and successful participation in their schooling, as well as in
both the local and global communities.
2.3. Engaging parents
Establishing greater opportunities for parental involvement in student learning
through ICT is an emerging but significant trend in the inter-jurisdictional scan of
policy we completed (see Appendix B: Interim Report). Effective parental involvement
is regarded as having a positive impact on a range of student-related outcomes. Harris
and Goodall (2008) conclude that home-based, rather than school-based, involvement
in supporting learning has the greatest impact and that schools need to provide
“guidance and support which enable such engagement to take place” (p. 286). For
some educational jurisdictions, this has meant explicitly designing ICT related
policies6 to mobilize and support parental engagement.
Providing and encouraging parental access to teaching and learning resources is
framed as a way of enabling “anytime-anywhere” student instruction, and of
extending formal learning beyond the classroom. For example, Hong Kong’s education
5
Please see Section 3: What (if any) are the impacts of skills, technology and learning on student
achievement and instructional practices?
6 For example, see England’s The Children’s Plan (2007) and Hong Kong’s Third Strategy on IT in
Education (2008).
9
system positions parents as essential role models and exemplars of 21st century
learning. The parent’s section of Hong Kong’s primary education portal contains
learning resources for parents to educate their children and to become ICT-literate
themselves. Hong Kong’s rationale is that if students see their parents engaging with
technologies for learning at home in their leisure time, this will cultivate a view of
learning as a life-long process.
Parents are also implicated in attempts to improve and extend ICT-based mechanisms
for tracking student progress and, increasingly, student behaviour and attendance. In
England, for instance, Becta’s policy document Harnessing Technology Funding 2010-
2011: Guidance for Schools (2009) encourages schools to invest funding in developing
technology-based parental reporting systems utilizing management information
systems, learning platforms, managed learning environments, messaging services or
other suitable online reporting systems. This initiative is viewed as a means to ensure
a strong parental voice in the education system.
However, providing technology and connectivity will not necessarily result in
improved parental engagement and/or involvement in their child(ren)’s education.
Parents, like teachers in classrooms, require support and effective communication
about the best ways to engage with their children’s learning at home. While the
provision of computers and connectivity in the home can increase parental
involvement in their children’s education, the challenge of how to engage all parents
universally and how to sustain such engagement remains (Harris & Goodall, 2008).
The next three subsections focus on issues and themes identified as particularly
relevant to educational reform in relation to 21st century skills, technology, and
learning. These issues are:
• the ongoing tendency to (mis)label the current generation of children (and,
increasingly, pre-service teachers) as ‘digital natives’, ascribing to an entire
generation the ICT-related competencies and abilities of a relatively small
number of socio-economically advantaged students;
• the underutilization of computers in schools, and the factors (some persistent,
some relatively recent) contributing to this ongoing disconnect between
investment in ICT and its consistent and pedagogically relevant integration into
teaching and learning;
• the lack of attention in macro-level policy reform to issues around
environmental sustainability with regards to the ongoing and massive
investments in ICT hardware for education.
2.4. Digital naifs?
In the early 2000’s a series of startling claims were made regarding the ‘new’
10
generation of students that were entering educational institutions as ‘digital natives’7
(Frand, 2000; Oblinger & Oblinger, 2005; Prensky, 2001; Tapscott, 1999). A common
theme in this literature is that young people’s use of ICT is so pervasive and integral
to their everyday lives that the education system must be responsive to the changed
learning preferences of this group—on the premise that, generically, this is the first
generation that has never known a world without digital technologies, it is asserted
that digitally-‘native’ students’ immersion in the technology-rich culture of the 21st
century has caused them to learn and communicate differently compared with past
generations. From this view, the digital native generation is seen as active
experiential learners, proficient in multitasking, and dependent on digital
technologies for accessing information and interacting with others.
Many education researchers have scrutinized these claims about today’s students,
pointing out that they have been put forward without theoretically-informed research
and sound, empirical evidence to substantiate the sweeping generalizations made
(Bennett, Maton, & Kervin, 2008; de Castell, Boshman, & Jenson, 2009; Guo, Dobson,
& Petrina, 2008; Li & Ranieri, 2010; Sanchez, Salinas, Contreras, Meyer, 2010). These
critics argue that the ‘digital native’ claims are based on limited empirical evidence
(e.g. Tapscott, 1999) and supported anecdotally or by appeal to common-sense
beliefs (e.g. Prensky, 2001). Critics further argue that the “digital native” view
positions birth year as the key determinant of whether a person will be
technologically adept, and overlooks other major factors that would influence one’s
level of technological competence, including cultural practices, socio-economic
status, geographic location, and gender.
Critics have charged that the “digital native” argument has induced an academic
moral panic in the education community, which demands total and rapid educational
reform to avoid further failures on the system’s part to properly ‘engage’ this new
generation. Further contributing to the moral panic is the dramatic language of the
“digital natives” argument that presents a series of dramatic dichotomies known as
‘digital divides’: between the ‘digital natives’ and the ‘digital immigrants’ (previous
generations of learners), between the technically adept and those who are not, and
between ‘21st century’ learners and a culturally-obsolescent education system.
Interestingly, advocates of this view do not reflect upon the series of digital divides
that can be observed within the so-called “digital native” generation which include
divides between urban and rural student populations, between male and female
students, and between poor and affluent student populations (Livingstone, Bober,
Helsper, 2005; Schulmeister, 2009).
These internal divides are explored by more rigorous research that closely scrutinizes
the assumptions made of today’s students and their ICT use. This second wave of
research shows that ICT is socially distributed in such a way that these “digital
7 A host of terms were coined and used to describe this new learner (e.g. digital natives, millennials,
net generation, generation C, generation G), however ‘digital native’ is the most widely used and
accepted.
11
native” traits are specific to socio-economically advantaged populations. It shows,
too, that digital competence is more determined by the cultural practices of such
groups than by generational effect (Sanchez, Salinas, Contreras, Meyer, 2010).
Furthermore, some researchers argue that the competencies of “digital natives” is
overstated: they are not necessarily knowledgeable about or skillful in using digital
tools, especially when they are in learning situations (de Castell, Boschman, &
Jenson, 2009; Kennedy, Judd, Churchward & Gray, 2008). For instance, a study
conducted by Li and Ranieri (2010) found that students’ familiarity with ICT was not
an indication of whether they were able to use school-related ICT competently.
Students’ use of everyday ICT (for socializing and entertainment purposes), for
example, does not necessarily transfer over into skillful use of ICT for learning.
It is undeniable that the expectations for today’s students are different. Students are
expected to develop and master a new (and evolving) skill set that includes, at
minimum, a basic level of digital competency to be successful in a globalized
economy. While we want all students to master this skill set by the time they leave
the system, the diversity of their everyday experiences with ICT means that they do
not all start from the same place. What needs to be made clear is that not all
students are ‘digitally native’. This term denotes a privileged position in terms of
gender, socio-economic status, and geography. Therefore, the role of ICT in the
classrooms, in context of 21st century skills, technology and learning, is arguably
about providing access and scaffolding to students, and thereby creating
educationally equitable and socially just teaching and learning environments.
2.5. Computers in schools: (Still) underused
Almost a decade since the 2001 publication of Oversold and Underused: Computers in
the Classroom, Larry Cuban’s study of computer integration in Californian schools,
research in the area of technology-enabled instruction continues to point to the same
fundamental issue. Despite massive investment in digital technologies for education
over the last two decades, there remains little evidence of its impact on student
achievement. As well, the research consulted for this report points to inconsistent,
uneven and inconsequential implementation of ICT to advance the teaching and
learning of 21st century skills. Research in Canada, Denmark, England, the US, and
elsewhere consistently reports the following findings, initially cited by Cuban in 2001:
• Technology continues to be primarily used for educational administration
rather than instruction;
• There is little systematic implementation of meaningful and rigorous
professional development in relation to ICT-based instruction, either for preservice
or in-service teachers;
• There are few accountability measures for reporting on teachers’ efforts (or
lack thereof) to integrate ICT into their instruction (significant exceptions
include the STaR system in Texas, and the ICT self-assessment tool for teachers
in England);
12
• Educators remain under-supported in their efforts, with little preparation time
and on-site technical support for integrating ICT into their practice (Becta,
2010; Culp, Honey & Mandinach, 2005; Denmark Ministry of Education, n.d.;
Jenson, Brushwood Rose, & Lewis, 2007; Robinson & Sebba, 2010; US
Department of Education, 2010; Whale, 2006).
Case studies on small, localized efforts to integrate ICT into instructional practice and
learning report further barriers:
• ICT (particularly computers) continues to be clustered in computer labs and
libraries, meaning that access is still an issue, even though the technology is
ostensibly available (Fragkouli & Hammond, 2007; Hixon & Buckenmeyer, 2009;
Johnson & Maddux, 2008; Hammond et al., 2009).
These and other studies collectively depict the material conditions of technology
(dis)use in formal K-12 education, where digital technologies are very much in
schools, but very infrequently in pedagogical practice. While ‘good news stories’
abound in regards to students and teachers using digital technologies in innovative
and educationally significant ways, the overall context remains that of substantial,
persistent and complex barriers to the consistent implementation and recognition of
ICT-enabled teaching and learning.
2.6. Environmental Impact of ICT
There has been little research to date on the impact of the large-scale purchasing of
technology for K-12 education. In early work on the subject by C. A. Bowers (2000),
Let Them Eat Data: How Computers Affect Education, Cultural Diversity, and the
Prospects of Ecological Sustainability, the author argues that there is general
disregard in uses of computers in education and their impact on the environment. The
important point in that work, and one thing that is still radically under-discussed, is
the ways in which ICT impact the environment, including not just their daily costs in
terms of electricity use, but also their cost to recycle and/or destroy. To illustrate by
way of one small example: it is useful to ask, how many school districts and/or
provinces have tried to reduce costs and environmental footprints of ICT in schools by
requiring they be shut down when not in use or at the end of the day? In our literature
review and in our inter-jurisdictional scan we did not find a single example of policy
that explicitly tackled the issue. Disposing of computers, monitors, and computerbased
equipment also has an enormous impact on the environment, yet in no
literature we consulted was this considered when equipment was being purchased for
educational use. It is imperative in the future that the environmental costs versus
benefits of ICT are not only discussed, but directly addressed through educational
policies. That they are not discussed and are absent in policy to date, contradicts 21st
century skills, technology and learning goals, and seems to be one area that could
very much be developed to produce leading-edge educational policies.
13
Section 3: What (if any) are the impacts of skills, technology and learning on
student achievement and instructional practices?
This section addresses the impact of skills, technology and learning first on student
achievement, and then on instructional practice, separating the two in order to afford
a more nuanced look at how they are articulated within ICT-enabled education.
3.1. Student achievement: missing the mark
The impact of 21st century skills, technology and learning on student achievement is
difficult to measure as the landscape of schools and individual classrooms is so varied,
and as digital technology remediates the form and function of public education. In
the literature reviewed, there is a notable lack of evidence that directly links 21st
century skills, technology and learning to increased student achievement. Two
distinct but related reasons explain the absence of evidence. First, on a macro-scale,
standardized assessments are simply not capable of either evaluating or reporting on
the elements that reflect students’ achievement of 21st century skills
(communication, collaboration, creativity and innovation, and critical thinking).
Second, at the level of individual boards and classrooms, indications of increased
student achievement in relation to 21st century skills, technology and learning are less
recognized, monitored and assessed than indications of student engagement.
A macro perspective on student achievement
Student achievement is measured on the macro-scale (e.g. all students in the public
school system) through standardized testing. Nearly universally, such testing focuses
on measuring competencies in mathematics, sciences, and paper and pencil
‘literacies’, but leaves out ICT competencies, and/or forms of collaborative
knowledge production. This means that as presently structured and implemented,
standardized assessment processes are not capable of evaluating the skills and
competencies associated with 21st century learning. This critique emerged as a strong
theme through our scan of academic literature and governmental policy documents,
and was echoed by policy-guiding think-tanks like the International Society for
Technology in Education (ISTE) and the Partnership for 21st Century Skills (P21).
In addition, standardized evaluation tends to come into tension with the broad
characterization of work and learning in the 21st century as by necessity
collaborative. Evaluation tends to measure students’ individual understandings and
competencies, not their abilities to learn, work and produce collaboratively. In other
words, standardized testing is necessarily results-driven and individuated, while
collaboration tends to be process-driven and group-oriented.
ICT and student achievement
Consistently across all the research reviewed for this report, ICT-based education was
viewed as a cornerstone of 21st century skills, technology and learning, and yet largerscale
studies have consistently found “no significant results” from the integration of
14
ICT on students’ assessment scores.
For example, a multi-site study of ten 1:1 laptop programs in the U.S. found that
while significant changes were made to the “processes, sources and products of
literacy”, and students showed significant gains in technology-related literacies, there
was no impact on tests scores or on the achievement gap (Warschauer, 2008). Another
large scale, multi-site study of a virtual environment for scientific inquiry, involving
2,000 students, reported little difference between the control and the test group
using a standardized post-survey. When the researchers altered their method of
assessment, they found that the test group showed a “stronger understanding of
scientific inquiry” (Ketelhut, et al., 2010, p. 67). Employing a different tactic, Lei
(2009) argues that too many studies of ICT in relation to student achievement focus
on the frequency of students’ technology use (e.g., “computer time”) rather than the
quality of instruction and integration, or the types of technologies used in relation to
specific subject areas, or how and for what purposes technology is used. With this
methodological shift in place, Lei’s own study connects specific technologies to
specific and significant outcomes related to technological proficiency, learning habits
and emotional development, but observes that assessment scores (e.g. post tests)
were not affected.
As suggested by Lei (2009) and argued more decisively by Lui, Maddox and Johnson,
(2008), there is a major weakness in the research that finds “no significant results”.
This weakness is that it is based on a flawed premise —namely, the assumption that
providing access to technologies is, in itself, beneficial. This conceptual pitfall is best
summarized by the editors of a special issue of the National Technology Leadership
Coalition, who conclude:
Research questions and designs that fail to differentiate by the content being
studied, the pedagogical strategies employed and the way technology
interoperates with these variables will probably continue to find that merely
using a technology medium is not educationally beneficial (Schrum et al., 2007).
Ground-level ICT integration and student achievement
There is some evidence to show that the use of ICT to support teaching improves
student achievement. Research on the use of interactive white boards (IWBs) in
English language learning showed improved standardized test scores (López, 2009).
Another study showed that students’ whole word recognition was improved through
teachers’ use of multimedia software (Karemaker, Pitchford, O’Malley, 2009). Still
another study claimed that the use of “GroupScribbles” brainstorming software in a
science classroom helped foster collaboration, participation and increased
achievement in traditional classroom-based assessments (Looi, Chen, & Ng, 2010).
Using a control group methodology, a large-scale study of a socially-networked online
environment found that when the educators/researchers changed their assessment
procedures so that students had to complete a “lab report”, a direct impact from ICT
use was shown. However, traditional assessment methods showed no impact
(Ketelhut, et al., 2010).
15
These and other classroom level case studies point to positive relationships between
ICT-based education and student achievement, but they remain highly contextspecific,
with limited scalability. They are useful, however, in that they collectively
represent an exploration of the educative potentials of digital technologies applied to
specific sets of outcomes and subject areas.
There remains, however, a significant disconnect between standardized assessments
and the kinds of competencies, skills and dispositions flagged by 21st century skills,
technology and learning that are being cultivated through the grass-roots level
practices reported in these case stories. An ongoing challenge is to re-tool assessment
methodologies and practices in order to account for how ICT transform teaching and
learning. In addition, the effectiveness of technology use need not necessarily be
contingent on specific achievement-related student outcomes. Outcomes that are also
important components of schooling include student behaviours, attitudes, selfesteem,
digital literacies and career aspirations. However, it continues to be the case
that improvements to student achievement attributable to educational uses of ICT
may be present, but are not yet identified nor properly measured.
In the next section, we turn to a discussion of one highly significant outcome that is
strongly represented in literature on 21st century skills, technology and learning: the
capacity of digital technologies to increase student engagement in classroom-based
learning.
Technology and student engagement: a not-insignificant outcome
In contrast to the difficulties in assessing student achievement and technology use,
student engagement using technologies has been well documented. These studies
tend to focus on the use of one kind of technology such as: an interactive white board
(Beauchamp & Kennewell, 2010; Torff & Tirotta, 2010), game (Carbonaro, et al.,
2008; Owston, et al., 2009, Whelchel, 2007), multimedia program, 1:1 laptop program
(Lei, Conway & Zhao, 2008; Penuel, 2006; Warschauer 2008), or an iPod touch
(Auchincloss & McIntyre, 2008). While they can be large in number, they tend to have
limited scope, both because of context and because of implementation factors. As
well, because of the lack of longitudinal studies, it is difficult to assess whether or
not engagement and motivation hold over time, although recent evidence suggests
they might (Lei, 2010).
There are many other examples of technology being used to ignite and support
student engagement—from multimedia projects with clickers to students creating
near-professional documentary style video-based productions. Some of these, such as
the National Film Board of Canada’s annual competition on Racism means that
students receive national recognition for their amateur film efforts. The fact that
technology is, for many (but by no means all) youth, pervasive in their lives in some
format, means that they are beginning to demand that presence in their everyday
lives in schools. Sheehy and Bucknall (2008), for instance, describe a multi-age study
16
of students’ visions of the future in which, at all age levels, technology figures
prominently.
These studies are useful, once again, in demonstrating the extent to which the
question ‘how do technologies impact student achievement?’ might be misleading.
Clearly, better performance on standardized achievement scores is only one of a
number of outcomes that matter from the perspective of 21st century skills,
technology and learning. This is particularly the case since the inadequacies of
standardized assessments for measuring ICT-enabled skills have been recognized for
almost 20 years.
3.2. Instructional practice
This section addresses the disconnect, identified in both academic literature and
policy documents, between the availability of technology in schools and their
integration in instructional practice. This is widely regarded as a significant barrier to
the realization of 21st century teaching and learning and to the deployment of
technologies that account for massive funding, infrastructure and policy efforts.
There is consensus that the use of ICT can enable a differentiated approach to
instruction, and that there is a real need for transformative teacher practices that
moves from instructing to facilitating. In response, the research here reviewed is
concerned with re-conceptualizating teacher training, at both the in-service and preservice
levels, to address the disconnect between technology availability and its
effective integration.
Pre-service technology training
A number of studies cite “Will new teachers be prepared to teach in a digital age? A
national survey on information technology in teacher education” (1999), a study that
led to the formation of NETS global standards (Kay, 2006; Thieman, 2008; Williams,
Foulger & Wietzel, 2009). In this study, Moursund and Beilefeldt (1999) state that 71%
of teacher education programs surveyed in the report required at least three hours of
“generic instruction” in ICT, but did not offer adequate instruction into how ICT can
improve instructional practice. The study also found that in their co-operative
placements, pre-service teachers rarely worked collaboratively with teachers /
supervisors in developing ICT-based instruction.
A few studies position the new generation of pre-service teachers as ‘millenials’ or
‘digital natives’ (Heo, 2009; Lambert & Cruper, 2008; Lock, 2009; Marks, 2010), but
make the point that even where student teachers exhibit greater technology use than
previous generations, this by no means translates to the ability to effectively
integrate ICT into instructional practice. Several studies suggest that a decade on
from Moursund and Beilefeldt’s report it is still the case that few teacher colleges
offer anything more than cursory technology skills training (Hall, 2006; Johnson &
Maddux, 2008; Kay, 2006; Lambert & Cuper, 2008; Lambert & Gong, 2010; Russell,
Bebell, O’Dwyer,& O’Connor, 2003; Thieman, 2008; Whale, 2006; Vockley, 2008).
17
Speaking to the US context, Lambert and Gong (2010) point out that “the stand-alone
educational technology course still serves as the primary means of pre-service teacher
preparation in technology” (p. 55).
These studies address the perceived ongoing disconnect between the lack of
adequate, large-scale pre-service teacher training, and the needs and expectations of
21st century learners for whom digital technologies are increasingly ubiquitous. The
majority of these reports are case studies of reforms made in individual teacher
training classes. These studies provide empirical evidence that link intensive,
deliberate and sustained pre-service technology training to teachers’ effective
integration of ICT in their instructional practice. Often (Hall, 2010; Lambert & Gong,
2010; Thieman, 2008; Williams, Foulger & Wetzel, 2009) the emphasis in these
projects is on expanding the scope of pre-service training in order to not only train
teachers in specific ICT, but increase teachers’ self-efficacy and confidence in
technology-based instructional practice, and demonstrate the relevance and
applications of specific technologies to 21st century skills and learning.
Methodologies
The majority of studies reporting on efforts at reforming teacher training programs,
either at the level of individual teacher college courses and programs or at a national
level, in the case of Coklar and Odabasi’s report on Turkey, measured their findings
against ISTE’s National Educational Technology Standards (NETS) frameworks. Initially
published in 2000 and updated most recently in 2008, the National Education
Technology Standards for Teachers (NETS-T) identify a series of expectations for
teachers in relation to technology-enhanced instruction. These frameworks provide
performance indicators for both teachers (NETS-T) and students (NETS-S) for ICTbased
instruction and learning. In doing so, these reports explicitly measure study
outcomes against an internationally recognized set of definitions as to what 21st
century skills, technology, learning and teaching involve (see, for example, Banister &
Vannata, 2006; Basham, Smeltzer & Pianfetti, 2005; Hall, 2006; Stuve & Cassady,
2005; Williams, Foulger, & Wetzel, 2009).
Gender
A smaller number of studies related to pre-service teacher training and 21st century
skills, technology and learning address a gender gap in student teachers’ ability and
willingness to integrate ICT into their instructional practice. Sang, Valcke, von Braak
and Tondeur (2009) use self-report measures from Taiwanese student teachers to
assess whether and how gender is a predictor of “prospective ICT use”, finding no
significant gender differences. Similarly, in their case study of a teacher training
course oriented around 21st century skills, Lambert and Gong (2009) found no
discernable gender gap in participants’ levels of anxiety and self-efficacy related to
ICT use, either before or after the course. As with other case studies of teacher
training courses and programs, these studies rely primarily on self-reported accounts
from students enrolled in a course where the instructors are also the researchers.
18
It certainly remains the case that girls, and later women, do not choose higher
education or careers that are computer-science or engineering focused. In fact, a
recent study of North American enrolment rates for young women in computer
science and engineering showed decreased enrollment over the past 25 years in these
areas, stating “by graduation, men outnumber women in nearly every science and
engineering field, and in some, such as physics, engineering, and computer science,
the difference is dramatic, with women earning only 20 percent of bachelor’s
degrees. Women’s representation in science and engineering declines further at the
graduate level and yet again in the transition to the workplace” (Hill, Corbett, &
Rose, 2010, p.15).
Technology, especially computer-based technology is still very much, at least in terms
of skills and careers, occupied by many more men than women (c.f. Hill, Corbett, &
Rose, 2010; Anderson, Lankshear, Timms & Courtney, 2008; Anderson, Timms,
Courtney & Lankshear, 2008; Lasen, 2009).
In-service technology training
Although most of the literature reviewed on instructional practice and ICT focuses on
pre-service technology training, a number of studies explore efforts at ‘skilling up’ inservice
teachers on effective ICT-based instructional practice. As reported by
Fragkouli and Hammond (2007) and Hammond et al (2009), even educators who are
well-prepared by their pre-service education face significant barriers (curricular
constraints, constraints around access, lack of technical support and preparation
time) to integrate ICT into their instructional practice. A related issue regarding inservice
professional development is the fact that 81% of school districts surveyed in
the USA do not include technology skills in teacher evaluations, and that where such
evaluation is in place, expectations are often vague and indistinct (Whale, 2006, p.
71).
Many studies of in-service ICT-oriented professional development report on smallscale
attempts at implementing particular programs. Of these, the majority are
concerned with instructional practice in mathematics and the sciences. Valanides and
Angeli (2008), for instance, an increase in science educators’ use of computers in
their instruction after intensive workshops focusing on modeling multimedia-based
instructional strategies.
Other studies focus less on particular subject areas and more on the uses of certain
digital technologies across curricula. Conole and Culver (2009) describe how a social
networking tool for in-service teachers helped facilitate collaboration and knowledgesharing
among users. Beech, VanOverbeke, and Bonnstetter (2009) provide a more
generalized survey of how in-service teachers can integrate technologies from games
and puzzles, to PowerPoint, to digital cameras, in keeping with NETS-T standards.
19
Section 4: Conclusion
This report has addressed two questions central to educational reform in the 21st
century:
1) What are the major themes and trends in relation to 21st century skills,
technology and learning?
2) What (if any) are the impacts of skills, technology and learning on student
achievement and instructional practices?
It has approached these questions by providing a preliminary framework for
conceptualizing 21st century skills, technology and learning. It identifies instances
where 21st century skills have been specifically articulated, and dismisses the ongoing
characterization of an entire generation of students as ‘digitally native’. In doing so,
it steps aside of much of the rhetoric surrounding current educational reform. Rather
than report on technologies that are at the moment getting a lot of attention, we
have identified higher-order trends, each engaging a range of ICT, that cut across
educational reform at both the macro-scale and grassroots level.
Summary of Findings
This report has addressed the challenges facing educational reform in the 21st
century. Some are persistent (the ongoing gender gap in ICT-based teaching and
learning, and the troubling disconnect between spending on ICT and its actual use),
and some emergent (the need for educators and policy-makers to take seriously issues
around sustainability with regards to ICT and the push by students to use digital
devices for and in their daily school routines). These challenges demand, more than
ever, educational reform built around the principles of inclusivity, equitable access,
and the meaningful integration of ICT into teaching and learning. Moreover, this
report recognizes that the outcomes and impacts of such reform cannot be measured
by conventional modes of standardized testing. Rather, the 21st century skills and
learning made possible by new technologies represent a fundamental challenge to the
individuated yet homogenizing systems for assessing and measuring learning that are
currently in place.
20
Works Cited by Section
Section 1. Executive Summary
Ananiadoui, K., & Claro, M. (2009). “21st century skills and competences for new
millennium learners in OECD countries", OECD Education Working Papers, No. 41. doi:
10.1787/218525261154.
Annetta, L.A., Cheng, M-T., & Holmes, S. (2010). Assessing twenty-first century skills
through a teacher created video game for high school biology students, Research in
Science & Technological Education, 28(2), 101–114.
International Society for Technology in Education. (2007). The ISTE national
educational technology standards (NETS•S) and performance indicators for students.
Accessed June 1, 2010, from
http://www.iste.org/Content/NavigationMenu/NETS/ForStudents/2007Standards/NET
S_for_Students_2007.htm.
Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2009). P21 framework definitions. Accessed June
1, 2010, from
http://www.p21.org/index.php?option=com_contentandtask=viewandid=254andItemi
d=120.
Section 2: What are the major themes and trends in relation to 21st century
skills, technology and learning?
2.1 Open source technologies
Araya, D. (2008). The democratic turn: Prosumer innovation and learning in the
knowledge economy. In M.A. Peters & R.G. Britez (Eds.), Open education and
education for openness (pp. 17-31). Rotterdam, Netherlands: Senses Publishing.
de Castell, S., & Jenson, J. (forthcoming). New epistemologies? Rethinking ways of
knowing in a digital culture. In P. Trifonas (Ed.), Digital literacy and new media,
Routledge.
Derringer, P. (2009). When free isn’t Free: The realities of running open source in
school. Technology and Learning, 29(9). Accessed June 1, 2010, from
http://www.techlearning.com/article/16504.
Hepburn, G., & Buley, J. (2006). Getting open source software into schools: Strategies
and challenges. Innovate: Journal of Online Education, 3(1). Accessed June 1, 2010,
from
http://www.innovateonline.info/index.php?view=articleandid=323.
21
Marson, I. (2006, March 7). Open source in education: Winning hearts and minds.
ZDNet. Accessed June 1, 2010, from http://www.zdnet.co.uk/news/applicationdevelopment/
2006/03/07/open-source-in-education-winning-hearts-and-minds-
Office of Educational Technology. (2010). National educational technology plan. U.S.
Department of Education. Accessed June 1, 2010, from
http://www.ed.gov/technology/netp-2010.
Pfaffman, J. (2008). Transforming classrooms with free/open source software. High
School Journal, 91(3), 25-31.
TImmer, J. (2009, June 9). Open source, digital textbooks coming to California
schools. Ars technica. Accessed June 1, 2010, from http://arstechnica.com/techpolicy/
news/2009/06/open-source-digital-textbooks-coming-to-california-schools.ars.
2.2. Assistive and adaptive technologies
Alper, S., & Raharinirina, S. (2006). Assistive technology for individuals with
disabilities: A review and synthesis of the literature. Journal of Special Education
Technology, 21(2), 47-64.
Cheng, Y., & Ye, J. (2010). Exploring the social competence of students with autism
spectrum conditions in a collaborative virtual learning environment – The pilot study.
Computers and Education, 54, 1068-1077.
Englert, C.S., Wu, X., & Zhao, Y. (2005). Cognitive tools for writing: Scaffolding the
performance of students through technology. Learning Disabilities: Research and
Practice, 20(3), 184-198.
Glaser, C. W., Rieth, H. J., Kinzer, C. K., Colburn, L. K., & Peter, J. (1999). A
description of the impact of multimedia anchored instruction on classroom
interactions. Journal of Special Education Technology, 14(2), 27-43.
Lancaster, P. E., Lancaster, S. J. C., Schumaker, J. B., & Deshler, D. D. (2006). The
efficacy of an interactive hypermedia program for teaching a test-taking strategy to
students with high incidence disabilities. Journal of Special Education Technology,
21(2), 17-29.
Lancaster, P. E., Schumaker, J. B., & Deshler, D. D. (2002). The development and
validation of an interactive hypermedia program for teaching a self-advocacy strategy
to students with disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 25, 277-302.
Lange, A. A., McPhillips, M., Mulhern, G., & Wylie, J. (2006). Assistive technology
tools for secondary-level students with literacy difficulties. Journal of Special
Education Technology, 21(3), 13-22.
22
Lange, A. A., Mulhern, G., & Wylie, J. (2009). Proofreading using an assistive software
homophone tool: Compensatory and remedial effects on the literacy skills of students
with reading difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities. 42(4), 322-335.
Michaels, C. A., Prezant, F. P., Morabito, S. P., & Jackson, K. (2002). Assistive and
instructional technology for students with disabilities: A national snapshot of
postsecondary service providers. Journal of Special Education Technology, 17(1), 5-
14.
Okolo, C. M., & Bouck, E. C. (2007). Research about assistive technology: 2000-2006.
What have we learned? Journal of Special Education Technology, 22(3), 19-34.
Rose, D. E., Meyer, A., & Hitchcock, C. (2005). The universally designed classroom:
Accessible curriculum and digital technologies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education
Press.
Twyman, T., & Tindal, G. (2006). Using a computer-adapted, conceptually based
history text to increase comprehension and problem-solving skills in students with
disabilities. Journal of Special Education Technology, 21(2), 5-16.
2.3. Engaging parents
Becta. (2009). Harnessing technology funding 2010-2011: Guidance for schools.
Coventry, UK: Becta Publishing.
Department for Children, Schools and Families. (2007). The children’s plan: Building
brighter futures. Norwich: TSO.
Harris, A., & Goodall, J. (2008). Do parents know they matter? Engaging all parents in
learning. Educational Research, 50(3), 277–289.
Hong Kong Education Bureau. (2008). Third strategy on IT in education. Available at:
http://edbsdited.fwg.hk/3ITED/index_e.html. Retrieved: April 19, 2010.
2.4. Digital naifs?
Bennett, S., Maton, K., & Kervin, L. (2008). The ‘digital natives’ debate: A critical
review of the evidence. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(5), 775-786.
de Castell, S., Boschman, L., & Jenson, J. (2009) In and out of control. Loading:
A Journal of the Canadian Game Studies Association, 2, 1, n.p.
Frand, J. (2000, September/October). The information-age mindset: Changes in
students and implications for higher education. Educause Review, 35, 14-24.
Guo, R.X., Dobson, T., & Petrina, S. (2008). Digital natives, digital immigrants: An
23
analysis of age and ICT competency in teacher education. Journal of Educational
Computing Research, 38(3), 235-254.
Kennedy, G., Judd, T., Churchward, A., & Gray, K. (2008). First year students’
experiences with technology: Are they really digital natives? Australasian Journal of
Educational Technology, 24(1), 108-122.
Li, Y., & Ranieri, M. (2010). Are ‘digital natives’ really digitally competent? – A study
on Chinese teenagers. British Journal of Educational Technology, n.p.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.01053.x.
Livingstone, S., Bober, M., & Helsper, E. (2005). Internet literacy among children and
young people: Findings from the UK children go online project. London: LSE Research
Online. Retrieved from http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/archive/00000397.
Oblinger, D., & Oblinger, J. (2005). Is it age or IT: first steps towards understanding
the net generation. In D. Oblinger & J. Oblinger (Eds.), Educating the net generation
(pp. 2.1–2.20). Boulder, CO: Educause.
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital game based learning. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Sanchez, J., Salinas, A., Contreras, D., & Meyer, E. (2010). Does the new digital
generation of learners exist? A qualitative study. British Journal of Educational
Technology, n.p. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2010.01069.x.
Schulmeister, R. (2009, July). Is there a net gener in the house? Dispelling a
mystification. E-learning and Education. 5, n.p. Retrieved from:
http://eleed.campussource.de/archive/5/1587/
Tapscott, D. (1999). Educating the net generation. Educational Leadership, 56(5), 6-
11.
2.5. Computers in schools: (Still) underused
Becta. (2010). Harnessing technology review 2009: The role of technology in
education and skills. Coventry, UK: Becta Publishing.
Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom. Boston:
Harvard University Press.
Culp, K.M., Honey, M., & Mandinach, E. (2005). A retrospective on twenty years of
education technology policy. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 32(3), 279-
305.
Denmark Ministry of Education (n.d.). ICT in schools. Retrieved April 6, 2010 from
http://translate.google.ca/translate?hl=enandsl=daandu=http://www.uvm.dk/Udd
24
annelse/Folkeskolen/Om%20folkeskolen/Fokusomraader/It%20i%20folkeskolen.
aspxandei=RWzYS6_9G8OBlAeLwsSKBAandsa=Xandoi=translateandct=resultandresnum=
4and
ved=0CB0Q7gEwAwandprev=/search%253Fq%253DIT%252Bi%252BFolkeskolen%25E2
%2580%259D%2526hl%253Den.
Fragkouli, E., & Hammond, M. (2007). Issues in developing programmes to support
teachers of philology in using information and communications technologies in Greek
schools: A case study. Professional Development in Education, 33(4), 463-477.
Hammond, M., Fragkouli, E., et al. (2009). What happens as student teachers who
made very good use of ICT during pre-service training enter their first year of
teaching? Teacher Development, 13(2), 93-106.
Hixon, E., & Buckenmeyer, J. (2009). Revisiting technology integration in schools:
Implications for professional development. Computers in the Schools, 26(2), 130-146.
Jenson, J., Brushwood Rose, C., & Lewis, B. (2007). Technology policy unplugged:
Technology policies and practices in K-12 education in Canada. McGill-Queen’s
University Press.
Robinson, C., & Sebba, J. (2010). Personalising learning through the use of
technology. Computers and Education, 54, 767-775.
Whale, D. (2006). Technology skills as a criterion in teacher evaluation. Journal of
Technology and Teacher Education, 14(1), 61-74.
2.6. Environmental Impact of ICT
Bowers, C. A. (2000). Let them eat data: How computers affect education, cultural
diversity, and the prospects of ecological sustainability. Athens, GA: The University
of Georgia Press.
Section 3. What, if any, are the impacts of skills, technology and learning on
student achievement and instructional practices?
3.1. Student achievement: missing the mark
Auchincloss, C., & McIntyre, T. (2008). iPod “Teach”: Increased access to
technological learning supports through the use of the iPod Touch. Journal of Special
Education Technology, 23(2), 45–49.
Banister, S. (2010). Integrating the iPod touch in K-12 education: Visions and Vices.
Computers in the Schools, 27(2), 121-131.
25
Beauchamp, G., & Kennewell, S. (2010). Interactivity in the classroom and its impact
on learning. Computers and Education 54, 759-766.
Brabazon, T. (2009). Sounds like teen spirit: iTunes U, podcasting and a sonic
education. Interactions: Studies in Communication and Culture, 1(1), 71–91.
Carbonaro, M., Cutumisu, M., Duff, H., Gillis, S., Onuczko, C., & Siegel, J. (2008).
Interactive story authoring: A viable form of creative expression for the classroom.
Computers and Education, 51, 2, 687-707.
Clarebout, G., Coens, J., & Elen, J. (2008). The use of iPods in education: The case of
multi-tasking. In J. Zumback, N. Schwartz, T. Seufert, & L. Kester (Eds.), Beyond
knowledge: The legacy of competence, meaningful computer-based learning
environments (Vol. Part II-I, pp. 75–82). Uitgeverij, Netherlands: SpringerNetherlands.
Gulek, J. C., & Demirtas, H. (2005). Learning with technology: The impact of laptop
use on student achievement. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment,
3(2), 4–20.
Hennessy, S., Deaney, R., Ruthven, K., & Winterbottom, M. (2007). Pedagogical
strategies for using the interactive whiteboard to foster learner participation in school
science. Learning, Media and Technology, 32, 283–301.
Karemaker, A., Pitchford, N. J., & O’Malley, C. (2010). Enhanced recognition of
written words and enjoyment of reading in struggling beginning readers through
whole-word multimedia software. Computers in Education, 54, 199-208.
Ketelhut, D. J., Nelson, B. C., Clarke, J., & Dede, C. (2010). A Multi-user virtual
environment for building higher order inquiry skills in science. British Journal of
Educational Technology, 41(1), 56-68.
Lei, J. (2010). Conditions for ubiquitous computing: What can be learned from a
longitudinal study. Computers in the Schools, 27(1), 35-53.
Lei, J. (2010). Quantity versus quality: A new approach to examine the relationship
between technology use and student outcomes. British Journal of Educational
Technology, 41(3), 455-472.
Lei, J., Conway, P., & Zhao, Y. (2008). The digital pencil: One-to-one computing for
children. London: Erlbaum.
Liang, H. N. & Sedig, K. (2009). Can interactive visualization tools engage and support
pre-university students in exploring non-trivial mathematical concepts? Computers
and Education, 54, 972-991.
26
Looi, C-K., Chen, W., & Ng, F-K. (2010). Collaborative activities enabled by
GroupScribbles (GS): An exploratory study of learning effectiveness. Computers and
Education, 54, 14–26
López, O. S. (2009). The digital learning classroom: Improving English language
learners’ academic success in mathematics and reading using interactive whiteboard
technology. Computers and Education, 54, 901-915.
Owston, R., Wideman, H., Ronda, N. S., & Brown, C. (2009). Computer game
development as a literacy activity. Computers and Education, 53(3), 977-989.
Patten, K. B., & Craig, D. V. (2007). iPods and English-language learners: A great
combination. Teacher Librarian, 34(5), 40–44.
Penuel, W. R. (2006). Implementation and effects of one-to-one computing initiatives:
A research synthesis. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38, 329–348.
Schrum, L., Thompson, A., Maddux, C., Sprague, D., Bull, G., & Bell, L. (2007).
Editorial: Research on the effectiveness of technology in schools: The roles of
pedagogy and content. Contemporary issues in technology and teacher education,
7(1). Accessed June 1, 2010, at:
http://www.citejournal.org/vol7/iss1/editorial/article1.cfm
Sheehy, K., & Bucknall, S. (2008). How is technology seen in young people’s vision for
future education systems? Learning, Media and Technology, 33(2), 101-114.
Slay, H., Siebörger, I., & Hodgkinson-Williams, C. (2008). Interactive whiteboards:
Real beauty or just lipstick? Computers and Education, 51, 1321–1341.
Tinker, R., Horwitz, P., Bannasch, S., Staudt, C., & Vincent, T. (2007). Teacher uses
of highly mobile technologies: Probes and podcasts. Educational Technology,
47(3), 16–21.
Torff, B., & Tirotta, R. (2010). Interactive whiteboards produce small gains in
elementary students’ self-reported motivation in mathematics. Computers and
Education, 54, 379-383.
Warschauer, M. (2008). Laptops and Literacy: A multi-site case study. Pedagogies: An
International Journal, 3, 52-67.
Whelchel, A. (2007). Using civilization simulation video games in the history
classroom. World History Connected, 4(2).
27
3.2. Instructional practice
Anderson, N., Lankshear, C., Timms, C., & Courtney, L. (2008). Because it’s boring,
irrelevant and I don’t like computers: Why high school girls avoid professionallyoriented
ICT subjects. Computers and Education, 50(4), 1304–1318.
Anderson, N., Timms, C., Courtney, L., & Lankshear, C. (2008). Girls and information
communication technology (ICT). In N. Yelland, G. Neal, & E. Dakich (Eds.),
Rethinking education with ICT: New directions for effective practice (pp. 181–201).
Rotterdam, Netherlands: Senses Publishing.
Banister, S., & Vannatta, R. (2006). Beginning with a baseline: Insuring productive
technology integration in teacher education. Journal of Technology and Teacher
Education, 14(1), 209-235.
Basham, J., Smeltzer, A., & Pianfetti, E. (2005). An integrated gramework used to
increase preservice teacher NETS-T ability. Journal of Technology and Teacher
Education, 13(2), 257-276.
Beech, M., VanOverbeke, D., & Bonnstetter, R. (2009). Teacher education for the 21st
century classroom: Spanning the digital divide. In I. Gibson et al. (Eds.), Proceedings
of society for information technology and teacher education international conference
2009 (pp. 3104-3111). Chesapeaker, VA: AACE.
Coklar, A. N., & Odabasi, H.F. (2009). Educatonal technology standards scale (ETSS):
A study of reliability and validity for Turkish preservice teachers. Journal of
Computing in Teacher Education, 25(4), 135-142.
Conole, G., & Culver, J. (2010). The design of cloudworks: Applying social networking
practice to the exchange of learning and teaching ideas and designs. Computers and
Education, 54, 679-692.
Heo, M. (2009). Digital storytelling: An empirical study of the impact of digital
storytelling on pre-service teachers’ self-efficacy and dispositions towards
educational technology. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 18(4),
405-428.
Johnson, D. L., & Maddux, C. D. (2008). Introduction: Effectiveness of information
technology in education. Computers in the Schools, 24(3), 1-6
Kay, R. (2006). Evaluating strategies used to incorporate technology into pre-service
education: A review of the literature. Journal of Research on Technology in
Education, 38(4), 383–408.
28
Lambert, J., & Cuper, P. (2008). Multimedia technologies and familiar spaces: 21st
century teaching for 21st Century Learners. Contemporary Issues in Technology and
Teacher Education, 8(3), 264-276.
Lambert, J., & Gong, Y. (2010). 21st Century Paradigms for Pre-Service Teacher
Technology Preparation. Computers in the Schools, 27(1), 54-70.
Lassen, M. (2009). Education and career pathways in information communication
technology: What are girls saying? Computers and Education, 54, 1117-1126.
Moursund, D., & Bielefeldt, T. (1999). Will new teachers be prepared to teach in a
digital age? A national survey on information technology in teacher education.
Retrieved from the Milken Family Foundation Web site:
http://www.mff.org/publications/publications.taf?page=154
Hill, C., Corbett, C., & Hill, R. (2010). Why so few? Women in science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics. Washington, DC: AAUW.
Russell, M., Bebell, D., O’Dwyer, L., & O’Connor, K. (2003). Examining teacher
technology use: Implications for preservice and inservice teacher preparation. Journal
of Teacher Education, 54(4), 297-310.
Sivin-Kachala, J., & Bialo, E. (2000). 2000 research report on the effectiveness of
technology in schools (7th ed.). Washington, DC: Software and Information Industry
Association.
Stuve, M., & Cassady, J. (2005). A factor analysis of the NETS performance profiles:
Searching for constructs of self-concept and technology professionalism. Journal of
Technology and Teacher Education, 13(2), 303-324
Thieman, G. (2008). Using technology as a tool for learning and developing 21st
century skills: An examination of technology use by pre-service teachers with their K-
12 students. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 8(4), 342-
366.
Vockley, M. (2008). Maximizing the impact: The pivotal role of technology in a 21st
century education system. Retrieved June 20, 2008, from http://www.setda.
org/web/guest/maximizingimpactreport
Waxman, H. C., Connell, M. L., & Gray, J. (2002). Meta-analysis: Effects of
educational technology on student outcomes. Retrieved August 2, 2005, from
http://www.ncrel.org/tech/effects/
Williams, M.K., Foulger, T.S., & Wetzel, K. (2009). Preparing preservice teachers for
21st century classrooms: Transforming attitudes and behaviors about innovative
technology. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 17(3), 393-418.
29
Appendix A: Methodology
For this report, we consulted hard and soft policy documents from numerous
jurisdictions (particularly, but not limited to, those we focused on in the Interim
Report; see Appendix B). We also drew from large-scale reports published by policyguiding
organizations regarding 21st century skills, technology and learning, and the
role of ICT. These works (OECD report, ISTE, P21) provided touchstones for
articulating the commonalities across different uses and applications of “21st century
skills, technology and learning”.
Building on this base of information, we undertook a comprehensive scan of academic
literature organized around 21st century skills, technology and learning, and ICTenabled
instruction and education. These were the steps followed: We proceeded by
conducting preliminary sweeps of academic journals related to professional
development and teacher training, technology-enhanced learning, educational
administration, ICT use in schools, assessment/achievement and ICT use, and
curriculum implementation supported by ICT. With this initial overview in place, we
generated a list of the themes and issues we found particularly relevant, salient,
and/or significant with regards to the two questions addressed in this report, and with
those issues and themes in place, we went back into the literature to conduct a more
focused compilation and analysis of articles.
In total, the initial scan produced over 500 academic journal articles and books from
2005 until the present, with back checking of older work where relevant. These we
narrowed down to salient works that directly addressed the two primary questions
this report focuses on:
1) What are the major themes and trends in relation to 21st century skills,
technology and learning?
2) What (if any) are the impacts of skills, technology and learning on student
achievement and instructional practices?
30
Appendix B: Interim Report
This report was submitted on June 4, 2010, in response to the question, “What are
the Ministry’s comparator jurisdictions doing on skills, technology and learning and
what theoretical perspectives inform their work?”
The executive summary and report have been reproduced from the original, excluding
appendices.
Section 1: Executive Summary
1.1. Introduction
“Twenty-first century skills, technology and learning” is a common phrase that is in
use both in educational policy documents and in popular media to signal, first and
foremost, change. This is a new century, with new demands on education, including
the intensive and extensive demands of moving from a print-based culture to a digital
culture, continued massification of education in general, and the pressing need for
global competitiveness in a post-industrial, knowledge-based economy. This report
responds to the question of how educational jurisdictions outside of Ontario are
addressing new demands for global competitiveness, 21st century job training,
pervasive and responsive technologies, connectivity, and educational uses of mobile
technologies, social networking and games.
Fifteen jurisdictions implementing whole-scale system reform were examined for this
report8—Alberta, British Columbia, California, Catalonia (Spain), Denmark, England,
Georgia (US), Hong Kong, Maine, New York, Norway, Singapore, Tennessee, Texas,
Victoria (Australia)—and a thorough policy scan of government websites,
documentation and commissioned reports, related web materials, educationally
focused-websites, school-level websites and reporting structures, media releases, and
news and journal-related media. With four exceptions (California, Denmark,
Tennessee, and British Columbia), each of the jurisdictions outlined, through policy
documents and/or related literature, and a vision for “skills, technology and learning”
that was supported both fiscally and through related policy-driven curriculum
documents and professional development opportunities for teachers.
While policy-driven, technology-enabled, whole scale system reform is common to
almost all of the jurisdictions that we examined, there was wide variability in how
that was implemented. For the purposes of this report, we have attempted to capture
that variability through short overviews of each of the fifteen jurisdictions (see
Section 2: Overview), as well as in the more in depth 3-page reports we have
prepared (Appendices E to T).
8 Please see Appendix A: Methodology for a description of how we selected and analyzed each
comparator jurisdiction.
31
Variability not withstanding, there were three common themes in regards to ICT that
cut across all jurisdictions that we examined:
• Every jurisdiction provides funding for ICT;
• Every jurisdiction provides ICT-focused professional development for teachers;
• Every jurisdiction embeds ICT in the curriculum, across subject areas and
grade levels.
What is significant here is that there seems to be little or no question that the role of
education is to be responsive to the demands of the 21st century, which include
information and communications technologies. Having said that, there is tremendous
variability in how educational policy in each jurisdiction addresses these concerns
through funding, school accountability, teacher training and professional
development, and curriculum.
1.2. 21st Century Skills, Technology and Learning
21st century learning is broadly conceptualized as learning that is supported, enabled
and makes use of the broad range of technologies that are a part of 21st century life,
such as those for communication, social networking, and even surveillance. Twentyfirst
century learning generally signals an integrated approach to skills, technology
and learning that acknowledges that computer-based devices are a central and
critical part of life, no matter where one is located and knowledge of them is key to
both learning and jobs.
Many if not most of the jurisdictions we looked at tied 21st century skills, technology
and learning to the need to support students’ entry into a globalized knowledge
economy. That is to say, technology was principally implicated not as a driver of
educational change, but as a necessary part of life and learning in the 21st century. In
other words, it was viewed as something that supports both instruction and learning,
but was not viewed as the agent of change—that responsibility resides in all cases at
the level of the classroom and the teacher, and is supported through top-down policy
implementation.
So while there was ubiquitous support for ICT in education, it was also equally
difficult to find evidence of the ways in which ICT were improving student
achievement on a macro scale. Smaller studies (some anecdotal, some researchbased)
of single classrooms, schools, and districts, however, did attest to the fact
that technology can support and guide student learning, if linked directly to and
enabled by classroom instruction.
1.3. Key Findings
This review of comparator jurisdictions’ educational policies with attention to skills,
technology and learning focuses on six key categories for analysis. These categories
represent the primary areas of concern in jurisdictions that are undergoing policydriven,
technology-enabled whole-scale system reform. They are:
32
• how education is governed and funded in each jurisdiction;
• the role of ICT in school/district accountability and data management;
• the role of ICT in professional development;
• ICT in relation to student engagement and achievement;
• ICT embedded in the curriculum; and
• the role of ICT in parental communication and involvement.
We explain each of these categories in more detail in the next section.
Governance and funding structures
Top-down educational policy is enacted most clearly through funding. In every
jurisdiction we examined, specific funding is earmarked for ICT in schools, whether
administered to schools or districts/boards through formula funding, competitive
grants, or a combination of the two. In almost all cases, funding for ICT is contingent
upon local (school or district/board) technology plans, which must be approved at the
jurisdictional level. This means that (with some notable exceptions), there is
significant centralized control over the provision and integration of ICT for schools.
School/district accountability and data management
Computer technology plays a major role in the mechanisms that many of these
jurisdictions put in place to collect, track and analyze data from schools. Centrallyrun
ICT-based accountability systems are used to collect standardized assessment
scores, track individual student achievement, monitor the extent of ICT integration
into teaching and learning, and track ongoing teacher professional development.
Moreover, in most jurisdictions, student records are online and online systems for
grade reporting are in place.
Professional development
All of the jurisdictions examined provide ICT-based teacher professional
development (PD). Teacher preparedness and willingness to integrate ICT into their
practice in support of 21st century skills, technology and learning is identified as a
fundamental policy goal. In a small number of jurisdictions we examined, ICT skills
testing is a mandatory part of teacher certification. What is not clear, however, in
any of the documents that were consulted for this scan or in any of the related grey
literature, is whether and how PD drives changes in teacher practice, and what the
relationship is between instructional innovation (with or without technologies) and
student success.
Student engagement and achievement
In the hard policy documents and grey literature we analyzed, ICT was viewed in a
number of different ways in relation to student engagement and achievement. In
some cases, jurisdictions cited the increasing ubiquity of mobile, game-based and
social technologies in students’ lives as a rationale for embracing ICT-enabled
educational reform. In other jurisdictions, students’ lack of access, especially among
socio-economically disadvantaged and rural populations, to what are now widely
regarded as basic ICT and ICT competencies (e.g. internet access, personal
33
computing), are used an impetus for policy-driven integration of ICT into schools and
classrooms. Finally, several jurisdictions viewed ICT as a means of providing
differentiated and individualized instruction to students, and of thereby improving
student achievement.
Curriculum
In all of the jurisdictions we examined, ICT-related skills are foundational elements of
the curriculum. In some cases it is tied to particular subject areas, in others it is
integrated across the curriculum. Almost all jurisdictions provide centralized portals
for e-Learning resources.
While we cannot offer in this report a nuanced, on the ground account of how ICT are
being integrated into classrooms in each jurisdiction we examined, we were able to
discern a broad trend in the ways that jurisdictions approach ICT in relation to macrolevel
K-12 curricula. Unlike previous policy shifts in the late 1990’s and early 2000’s in
which ICT-related skills were often identified as stand-alone curricular outcomes, ICTrelated
skills and applications are integrated across all subject areas, particularly
language arts and sciences.
Parents
Establishing greater opportunities for parental involvement in student learning
through ICT is an emerging but discernible trend across the jurisdictions we
investigated. Providing and encouraging parental access to teaching and learning
resources (such as online instructional materials or mobile devices) is framed as a way
of enabling anytime, anywhere student instruction, and of extending formal learning
beyond the classroom. Parents are also implicated in some jurisdictions’ attempts to
improve and extend ICT-based mechanisms for tracking student progress and,
increasingly, student behaviour and attendance.
1.4. Ground-level, Grassroots Initiatives
In addition to the top-down initiatives and policies that broadly characterized skills,
technology and learning, there were also ground-level, grassroots reforms that were
reported on by local and sometimes national level journalism in nearly all of the
jurisdictions we examined. These initiatives and the ways in which they were
reported on usually had one thing in common: they highlighted the relationship
between student learning and engagement and the use of some form of ICT either at
the classroom or school level, and less typically at the school-district level. For
example, a 1 to 1 laptop program in a classroom in California, an iPod touch and
Nintendo DS program for math skills in a school in Bradford, England, or the
purchasing of iPads as ebook readers for high schools in Santa Cruz, California. While
these programs tend to get the attention of popular media, it is much more difficult
to find research-based evidence that is tied to these kinds of projects. Such attempts
often represent the most innovative approaches to skills, technology and learning but
are rarely either sustainable over the long term or transferable from one context to
another: they are enabled by policy but are not policy driven.
34
Section 2: Overview of Comparator Jurisdictions
This section provides a brief summary of each of the fifteen case stories provided in
Appendices E to T for the jurisdictions examined. For each jurisdiction, a brief
rationale as to why it was chosen (presented in italics) is given and we summarize our
findings with regards to each of the four categories of analysis listed below. This
overview illustrates the wide variability in the implementation of policy-driven,
technology-enabled whole-scale system reforms across the fifteen jurisdictions
examined.
The case stories provide documentary evidence in relation to four primary categories
of analysis:
• Governance
• Funding
• Professional development and teacher training
• Curriculum
In addition, where explicitly mentioned either in hard or soft policy documents,
parental roles and involvement are included.
Alberta
Alberta has pursued policy-driven, technology-enabled, whole-scale reform since
1996.
Educational governance in Alberta is hybridized: the Ministry of Education sets
funding, standardized testing and curriculum, but local boards of education are
authorized to determine local policies and practices. This allows school boards to use
baseline government funding to address specific ICT needs and priorities.
Teachers in Alberta are not required to undergo ICT training as part of their
certification. Province-wide professional development services offer in-service
educators training for integrating ICT into classrooms, and enhancing technology
leadership skills. The ICT Program of Study for K-12 students is a “curriculum within a
curriculum” designed for integration across all subject areas.
British Columbia
British Columbia conceptualizes 21st century learning as technology-enabled and
student-centered.
In a relatively decentralized system, B.C.’s Ministry of Education oversees educational
policies in relation to standards and student performance, and local boards of
education have authority to determine education policy, giving them autonomy and
flexibility in the delivery of education services. Formula funding is provided to boards
to manage their specific technology needs and priorities.
35
B.C. teachers are not required to undergo ICT training as part of their certification,
nor are there any province-wide PD initiatives for in-service educators. ICT is
integrated into subjects and can also be taken as specific courses in grades 8-12.
Virtual schooling is central to B.C.’s approach to skills, technology and learning: all
students can enroll in Distributed Learning courses through the LearnNowBC virtual
school portal.
United States (U.S.)
The U.S. Department of Education emphasizes the importance of ICT-based education
in preparing students for participation in a globalized 21st century economy.
The U.S. Department of Education is primarily responsible for establishing policy and
monitoring federal funds for education, as well as conducting and publishing nationwide
research into public education. It also oversees conducting, compiling and
reporting on states’ adherence to the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB).
Curriculum remains a state responsibility, although the NCLB mandates that states
conduct standardized testing, allocate 25% of ICT-related funds to professional
development, and administer a technology literacy requirement to Grade 8 students.
California
Regarded as a leader in ICT-based teaching and learning in the 1990’s and early
2000’s, California’s education system has undergone significant budget cuts in recent
years. The state has developed little policy in the area of skills, technology and
learning.
The California Department of Education (CDE) sets all state policy and manages all
funding that comes from the Federal government, through both formula funding and
competitive grants.
California requires teachers to have ICT training for state certification, and offers a
centralized self-reporting mechanism for ongoing ICT proficiency of practicing
teachers. The CDE also offers voluntary ICT related PD opportunities for in-service
teachers. ICT standards are integrated into California’s curriculum.
Georgia (U.S.)
Georgia is involved in policy-driven, technology-enabled whole-scale system reform.
Governance of education in Georgia is centralized, driven by policy at the state level
with school districts responsible for implementation and mandated to report back to
the state through various accountability structures. Unlike most other states, which
incorporate a combination of formula funding and competitive grants, funding for
technology in Georgia’s schools is provided entirely through competitive grants, and
distributed through mandated and approved technology plans by district.
36
Until April 22nd, 2010, Georgia required teachers to have technology training for state
teacher certification. The program reached over 70,000 educators and was rescinded
due to cost and perceived lack of need. However, the state still offers ICT-related
professional development opportunities for in-service teachers and leaders. Georgia’s
state curriculum integrates technology standards across all subject areas. Mandatory
standardized testing at all grade levels focuses on student achievement.
Maine
In 2002, Maine began a 1 to 1 digital learning program that provided laptops and
wireless classrooms to all 7th and 8th grade students and teachers. It initiated widescale
technical assistance and professional development for administrators and
teachers and integrated a research-based component in its 1 to 1 effort.
Maine’s Department of Education sets all state policy and manages all funding that
comes from the Federal government. In this centralized system, funding for
technology for schools is formula-based and centrally distributed, and relies on both
federal grants as well as state-legislated funding (through the Maine Learning
Technology Initiative).
Maine does not require technological proficiency for teacher certification, but the
state offers professional development for technology, learning and curriculum.
Technology is viewed as a way of supporting learning in all subject areas in the state’s
curriculum. Annual state standardized testing in mathematics and reading is
mandatory for grades 3 through 8.
New York
A 2007 review of New York’s implementation of ICT in education showed that ICT is
not integrated effectively and consistently state-wide. In response to this finding,
New York drafted its first educational technology plan in 2010.
The New York State Education Department sets all state policy and manages all
funding that comes from the federal government. In this centralized system, federal
and state funding is managed at the state level, and distributed through competitive
grants and funding formulas to school boards.
ICT skills are not explicitly mandated for either pre-service or in-service educators in
New York and annual evaluations of teacher performance do not include a specific
focus on technology. The state curriculum specifies expectations regarding students’
use of ICT in each subject area.
Tennessee
Tennessee was chosen to receive the Race to the Top grant (2010) that provides
funds for whole-system state reform, especially to improve assessment. Tennessee’s
winning grant proposal, awarding $500 million (USD), commits to improve teaching
and learning in the STEM disciplines, though there is no direct mention of ICT
education.
37
Tennessee’s Department of Education sets all state policy and manages all funding
that comes from the federal government. In this centralized system, federal and state
funding is managed at the state level, with distribution through competitive grants
and funding formulas to school boards.
Teacher candidates in Tennessee must be able to integrate technology into the
classroom; however, there is no formalized ICT skills requirement for teacher
certification. Technology is explicitly referenced as part of the curriculum standards
for K-12 schooling, across all subject areas.
Texas
Since 1988, Texas has developed and implemented a series of wide-scale,
comprehensive policy agendas with regards to ICT. Its most recent hard policy aims
for pervasive use of ICT across all areas of curriculum.
The Texas Education Agency (TEA) sets all state policy and manages funding that
comes from the federal government. In this centralized system, the State Board of
Education implements policy, governs K-12 education, and provides funding to school
districts through both competitive grants and formula funding.
Teachers’ ICT skills are evaluated as part of the state-mandated teacher certification
and, through the online School Technology and Readiness (STaR) system are reassessed
on an annual basis. Texas public school curriculum includes the Technology
Applications Curriculum, which sets out standards of proficiency for each grade and
across all key subject areas.
Catalonia (Spain)
In Catalonia, ICT-based education is regarded as a key component of the
jurisdiction’s efforts to preserve the Catalan language and culture.
The Catalan education system is hybridized, with responsibilities shared and/or
divided between the state and the federal Ministry of Education. Funding for
Catalonia’s education system is provided by the federal government.
Catalonian educators are not tested on their ICT skills as part of teacher certification,
but the state provides a number of voluntary resources and services for in-service
teacher training in ICT. In Catalonia’s hybridized curriculum (partially set by the
federal government and partially set by the Catalan government), ICT skills are one of
eight core competencies for secondary education. Catalonia’s current 1 to 1 laptop
program is viewed as a key means of preserving Catalan language as well as increasing
parental involvement.
Victoria (Australia)
Victoria is undergoing educational reform with ICT positioned at the very center.
38
The federal government provides funding to states, and will soon implement a
national curriculum and teacher training system, making the management of
education in Australia more centralized. Education is still primarily the responsibility
of states, which fund and oversee their own education systems.
Professional development opportunities are offered at the state level by Victoria’s
Department of Education and Early Childhood Development, as well as by the
Victorian Information Technology Teachers’ Association. Victoria’s mandated
curriculum integrates ICT across all subject areas. Standardized, national testing for
literacy and numeracy occurs in grades 3, 5, 7 and 9.
Denmark
Denmark’s most recent ICT program, ICT in the Folkeskole, has committed to
purchasing more technology, increasing ICT education in all grades, implementing a
knowledge management system and basic ICT course, and providing better teacher
training and support to teachers and parents through a national network.
Denmark’s Ministry of Education sets federal education policy and provides free,
public schooling to the age of 16. Funding for education is both federal and municipal.
Denmark does not require ICT skills testing as part of teacher certification, however
ICT professional development is offered through both municipal and federal services.
Schools are mandated to write their own curricula, which are approved by municipal
boards. In this framework, ICT is expected to be integrated across all subject areas.
England
Between 2007 and 2009, England initiated policy-driven, technology-enabled wholescale
system reform, aimed at granting more autonomy to schools for policy
formation and funding priorities, generating more opportunities for individualized
instruction (primarily through ICT), increasing parental involvement in both student
learning and accountability, and increasing school safety.
Until it was renamed to the Department for Education in May 2010, the Department of
Children, Schools and Families oversaw all matters related to young people in
England. In this centralized system, the national government allocates funds to local
authorities based on student population, need, and population density.
Teachers in England are required to undergo an ICT skills test, and the Training and
Development Agency also offers ongoing professional development opportunities
related to ICT integration and instruction. England’s National Curriculum requires ICTbased
instruction across all subject areas, and Level 3 (Grade 9) students are required
to take an ICT Literacy Assessment.
Hong Kong
Hong Kong’s education system is similar to Ontario’s in terms of spending, curriculum
implementation, and student advancement. Since 2000, Hong Kong has undertaken
39
policy-driven, technology-enabled whole system reform, with ICT integration into
classrooms viewed as a major initiative.
The Education Bureau directs and funds education in Hong Kong, with individual
schools responsible for managing their operations and planning for school
development. In this centralized system, each government-aided school is provided
with a formula-based Operating Expenses Block Grant, which is divided into funding
for essential expenditures and funding for specific policy objectives.
Hong Kong does not require ICT skills testing as part of teacher certification, however
ICT professional development is offered by the Education Bureau numerous times per
year. In Hong Kong’s mandated curriculum, ICT education is a key learning area for
students at all levels.
Norway
Norway has formulated a nationwide policy in ICT that outlines a holistic focus on ICT
in education, including a commitment to reforming teaching methods, and investing
into large-scale deployment of ICT.
Norway’s Ministry of Education and Research oversees the national educational policy
set by the federal government. In this hybridized system, the Ministry sets a national
curriculum and distributes funding to individual municipalities, which are tasked with
running kindergartens, primary, and lower secondary institutions.
The Ministry of Education and Research has allocated substantial resources for
professional development to teachers and school leaders. ICT skills are integrated as
one of the five basic skills in the Norwegian curriculum, as well as integrated into
subject areas.
Singapore
Singapore’s Ministry of Education has been involved in ICT integration since 1997
when the first of three Masterplans for ICT in Education was released. According to
the Global Competitiveness Report (2007/2008), Singapore’s education system was
ranked first in terms of ability to meet the needs of a competitive economy.
Singapore’s Ministry of Education oversees all educational responsibilities in the citystate,
directing the formulation and implementation of educational policies and
funding all public education.
Teachers in Singapore are not required to pass an ICT skills test as part of their
certification, but the Ministry of Education provides customized, in-service programs
to schools and hosts educational technology conferences. Singapore’s national
curriculum outlines baseline standards for specific competencies and milestones
related to students’ ICT use, and the city-state is currently considering how to
administer standardized assessments using ICT.
إرسال تعليق