changing education paradigms

ReviseSociology

A level sociology revision – education, families, research methods, crime and deviance and more!

Changing Education Paradigms

Table of Contents

Last Updated on July 30, 2017 by Karl Thompson

In this TED talk, Sir Ken Robinson argues that our current educational systems are still based on a industrial paradigm of education – education is increasingly standardised and about conformity, and kids, who are living in the most stimulating age in history, fail to see the point of going to school, which is about ‘finding the right answers to pass the tests’ rather than about stimulating divergent thinking.

One of our major solutions to the plague of distracted kids (alienated by a system the don’t identify with) is to medicate them to get them through school, whereas what really needs to change is the system itself – we need a paradigm shift, rather than mere reform.

Current Education systems are not fit for the future

Every country on earth is in the process of reforming its education system. There are two reasons for this:

The first is economic – countries are trying to figure out how to prepare children for work when we simply don’t know what work will look like in the future.
The second is cultural – countries are trying to figure out how to pass on their ‘cultural genes’ while at the same time having to respond to globalisation.

The problem with current processes of educational reform is that we are trying to tackle the future by doing what we did in the past and we are alienating millions of kids in the process, who simply can’t see the point of going to school.

When generation X when to school, we were motivated by a particular story: that if we worked hard and got good grades, we could get to college, get a degree and get a good job. Today’s children do not believe this, and they are right not to: getting a degree means you will probably get a better job, but is no longer guaranteed to get you a decent job!

The education system is rooted in an industrial paradigm

The problem with the current education system is that it was conceived in the cultural context of the Enlightenment and the economic context of the industrial revolution. It emerged in the nineteenth century, which was the first time which compulsory public education, freely available to all and paid for by taxes was established.

The Modern education system was originally founded on an ‘us and them’ mentality as many thinkers in the 19th century seriously believed that ordinary street kids could not cope with it, and it is also founded on an Enlightenment concept of the mind – which favours a knowledge of the classics and deductive reasoning, what we might call ‘academic knowledge’.

The system thus divides people into ‘smart people’ (academics) and ‘non-smart people’ (non-academics) and while this has been great for some, most people have not benefited from this system, in fact Ken Robinson argues that the main effect is that it has caused chaos.

We medicate our kids to get them through education

Statistics on prescriptions for Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) suggest that America is suffering from an ADHD epidemic – we are drugging our kids with Ritalin as a matter of routine. However, Robinson suggests that this cannot be an epidemic as the rates of prescription vary from West to East – they are much higher in the East of America, which suggests that this is a fictitious epidemic – it’s the system that’s choosing to medicate a ‘problem’ which is only a problem because the system has labelled it thus.

What’s really happening is that our kids are living through the most information rich age in history – they are bombarded with information from many sources through T.V. and the Internet – they are in a way, hyper-stimulated, and yet our response is to punish them for getting distracted from ‘boring stuff’ in school.

Robinson suggests that it is no coincidence that the incidents of prescriptions for ADHD corresponds closely to the rise in standardised testing.

The increasing use of drugs such as Ritalin to medicate kids means that we are effectively getting our kids through school by anaesthetising them.

The school system is run for the benefit of industry, and in many senses along industrial lines, mirroring a factory system of production in at least the following ways:

Ringing bells
Separate facilities
Specialised subjects
We still educate children by batches (‘as if the most important thing about them is the date of their manufacture’).

Increasingly education is about conformity, and you see is in the growth of standardised curricula and standardised testing. The current paradigm is mainly to do with standardisation, and we need to shift the paradigm and go in the other direction.

The education system kills creativity

There was a great study done recently on divergent thinking. Divergent thinking is an essential capacity for creative thinking – it is the ability to see lots of possible ways of interpreting and answering a question; to think laterally and to see many possible answers, not just one.

An example of this simply to give someone a paper clip and to get them to think of as many different uses for the paper clip as possible – someone whose good at this will be able to think of hundreds of uses for the paper clip by imagining that it can be all sorts of sizes and made out of all sorts of different materials.

Cites a Longitudinal study (taken from a book called ‘Break Point and Beyond) in which Kindergarten children were tested on their ability to think divergently, and 98% of them scored at ‘genius level’; the same children were retested at ages 8-10, but only 50% of them scored at genius level, and again at 13-15, where hardly any of them scored at genius level.

This study shows two things: firstly, we all have the inherent capacity for divergent thinking and secondly it deteriorates as children get older.

Now lots of things happen to these kids as they grow up, but the most important thing is that they have become educated – they’ve spent 10 years being told ‘that there’s one answer and it’s at the back, and don’t look and don’t copy’.

The problem we have is that the industrial-capitalist mode of education is deep in the gene-pool of the education system, it is an educational paradigm which will be hard to shift.

Shifting the Education Paradigm

We need to do the following to shift the industrial-capitalist education paradigm:

Firstly , destroy the myth that there is a divide between academic and non academic subjects, and between the abstract and the theoretical.

Secondly , recognize that most great learning takes place in groups – collaboration is the stuff of growth, rather than individualising people which separates them from their natural learning environment.

Finally , we need to change the habitual ways of thinking of those within the education system and the habitats which they occupy.

Relevance to A-Level Sociology

This can be used to criticise New Right approaches to education , as well as New Labour, The Coalition and the present Tory government – because all of them have kept in place the basic regime of testing introduced in 1988.

There’s also something of a link here to Bowles and Gintis’ Correspondence Principle – in which the Hidden Curriculum mirrors the work place, because the system is still based an industrial model.

Robinson seems to be suggesting we have a more post-modern approach to education – freeing schools and teachers up so they can encourage more creativity in the classroom rather than being constrained by the tyranny of standardised testing.

Limitations of Ken Robinson’s Perspective

One thought on “Changing Education Paradigms”

Pingback: Changing Education Paradigms - Morning Tea Coaching

Discover more from ReviseSociology

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

The turning point: Why we must transform education now

Global warming. Accelerated digital revolution. Growing inequalities. Democratic backsliding. Loss of biodiversity. Devastating pandemics. And the list goes on. These are just some of the most pressing challenges that we are facing today in our interconnected world.

The diagnosis is clear: Our current global education system is failing to address these alarming challenges and provide quality learning for everyone throughout life. We know that education today is not fulfilling its promise to help us shape peaceful, just, and sustainable societies. These findings were detailed in UNESCO’s Futures of Education Report in November 2021 which called for a new social contract for education.

That is why it has never been more crucial to reimagine the way we learn, what we learn and how we learn. The turning point is now. It’s time to transform education. How do we make that happen?

Here’s what you need to know.

Why do we need to transform education?

The current state of the world calls for a major transformation in education to repair past injustices and enhance our capacity to act together for a more sustainable and just future. We must ensure the right to lifelong learning by providing all learners - of all ages in all contexts - the knowledge and skills they need to realize their full potential and live with dignity. Education can no longer be limited to a single period of one’s lifetime. Everyone, starting with the most marginalized and disadvantaged in our societies, must be entitled to learning opportunities throughout life both for employment and personal agency. A new social contract for education must unite us around collective endeavours and provide the knowledge and innovation needed to shape a better world anchored in social, economic, and environmental justice.

What are the key areas that need to be transformed?

Inclusive, equitable, safe and healthy schools

Education is in crisis. High rates of poverty, exclusion and gender inequality continue to hold millions back from learning. Moreover, COVID-19 further exposed the inequities in education access and quality, and violence, armed conflict, disasters and reversal of women’s rights have increased insecurity. Inclusive, transformative education must ensure that all learners have unhindered access to and participation in education, that they are safe and healthy, free from violence and discrimination, and are supported with comprehensive care services within school settings. Transforming education requires a significant increase in investment in quality education, a strong foundation in comprehensive early childhood development and education, and must be underpinned by strong political commitment, sound planning, and a robust evidence base.

Learning and skills for life, work and sustainable development

There is a crisis in foundational learning, of literacy and numeracy skills among young learners. Since the COVID-19 pandemic, learning poverty has increased by a third in low- and middle-income countries, with an estimated 70% of 10-year-olds unable to understand a simple written text. Children with disabilities are 42% less likely to have foundational reading and numeracy skills compared to their peers. More than 771 million people still lack basic literacy skills, two-thirds of whom are women. Transforming education means empowering learners with knowledge, skills, values and attitudes to be resilient, adaptable and prepared for the uncertain future while contributing to human and planetary well-being and sustainable development. To do so, there must be emphasis on foundational learning for basic literacy and numeracy; education for sustainable development, which encompasses environmental and climate change education; and skills for employment and entrepreneurship.

Teachers, teaching and the teaching profession

Teachers are essential for achieving learning outcomes, and for achieving SDG 4 and the transformation of education. But teachers and education personnel are confronted by four major challenges: Teacher shortages; lack of professional development opportunities; low status and working conditions; and lack of capacity to develop teacher leadership, autonomy and innovation. Accelerating progress toward SDG 4 and transforming education require that there is an adequate number of teachers to meet learners’ needs, and all education personnel are trained, motivated, and supported. This can only be possible when education is adequately funded, and policies recognize and support the teaching profession, to improve their status and working conditions.

Digital learning and transformation

The COVID-19 crisis drove unprecedented innovations in remote learning through harnessing digital technologies. At the same time, the digital divide excluded many from learning, with nearly one-third of school-age children (463 million) without access to distance learning. These inequities in access meant some groups, such as young women and girls, were left out of learning opportunities. Digital transformation requires harnessing technology as part of larger systemic efforts to transform education, making it more inclusive, equitable, effective, relevant, and sustainable. Investments and action in digital learning should be guided by the three core principles: Center the most marginalized; Free, high-quality digital education content; and Pedagogical innovation and change.

Financing of education

While global education spending has grown overall, it has been thwarted by high population growth, the surmounting costs of managing education during the COVID-19 pandemic, and the diversion of aid to other emergencies, leaving a massive global education financial gap amounting to US$ 148 billion annually. In this context, the first step toward transformation is to urge funders to redirect resources back to education to close the funding gap. Following that, countries must have significantly increased and sustainable financing for achieving SDG 4 and that these resources must be equitably and effectively allocated and monitored. Addressing the gaps in education financing requires policy actions in three key areas: Mobilizing more resources, especially domestic; increasing efficiency and equity of allocations and expenditures; and improving education financing data. Finally, determining which areas needs to be financed, and how, will be informed by recommendations from each of the other four action tracks .

What is the Transforming Education Summit?

UNESCO is hosting the Transforming Education Pre-Summit on 28-30 June 2022, a meeting of over 140 Ministers of Education, as well as policy and business leaders and youth activists, who are coming together to build a roadmap to transform education globally. This meeting is a precursor to the Transforming Education Summit to be held on 19 September 2022 at the UN General Assembly in New York. This high-level summit is convened by the UN Secretary General to radically change our approach to education systems. Focusing on 5 key areas of transformation, the meeting seeks to mobilize political ambition, action, solutions and solidarity to transform education: to take stock of efforts to recover pandemic-related learning losses; to reimagine education systems for the world of today and tomorrow; and to revitalize national and global efforts to achieve SDG-4.

More on the Transforming Education Summit
More on the Pre-Summit

More on this subject

UNESCO International Forum on the Futures of Education 2024

Other recent news

UNESCO hosts networking event for education NGOs

Transforming education systems: Why, what, and how

Download the full policy brief
Download the executive summary
Baixe o resumo executivo
Baixar o resumo da política

تنزيل موجز السياسة

تنزيل الملخص التنفيذي

Descargar el PDF en Español
Descargar el resumen de políticas

Subscribe to the Center for Universal Education Bulletin

Rebecca winthrop and rebecca winthrop director - center for universal education , senior fellow - global economy and development @rebeccawinthrop the hon. minister david sengeh the hon. minister david sengeh minister of education and chief innovation officer - government of sierra leone, chief innovation officer - directorate of science, technology and innovation in sierra leone @dsengeh.

June 23, 2022

Today, the topic of education system transformation is front of mind for many leaders. Ministers of education around the world are seeking to build back better as they emerge from COVID-19-school closures to a new normal of living with a pandemic. The U.N. secretary general is convening the Transforming Education Summit (TES) at this year’s general assembly meeting (United Nations, n.d.). Students around the world continue to demand transformation on climate and not finding voice to do this through their schools are regularly leaving class to test out their civic action skills.

It is with this moment in mind that we have developed this shared vision of education system transformation. Collectively we offer insights on transformation from the perspective of a global think tank and a national government: the Center for Universal Education (CUE) at Brookings brings years of global research on education change and transformation, and the Ministry of Education of Sierra Leone brings on-the-ground lessons from designing and implementing system-wide educational rebuilding.

This brief is for any education leader or stakeholder who is interested in charting a transformation journey in their country or education jurisdiction such as a state or district. It is also for civil society organizations, funders, researchers, and anyone interested in the topic of national development through education. In it, we answer the following three questions and argue for a participatory approach to transformation:

Why is education system transformation urgent now? We argue that the world is at an inflection point. Climate change, the changing nature of work, increasing conflict and authoritarianism together with the urgency of COVID recovery has made the transformation agenda more critical than ever.
What is education system transformation? We argue that education system transformation must entail a fresh review of the goals of your system – are they meeting the moment that we are in, are they tackling inequality and building resilience for a changing world, are they fully context aware, are they owned broadly across society – and then fundamentally positioning all components of your education system to coherently contribute to this shared purpose.
How can education system transformation advance in your country or jurisdiction? We argue that three steps are crucial: Purpose (developing a broadly shared vision and purpose), Pedagogy (redesigning the pedagogical core), and Position (positioning and aligning all components of the system to support the pedagogical core and purpose). Deep engagement of educators, families, communities, students, ministry staff, and partners is essential across each of these “3 P” steps.

Education reform and change driven by digital technology: a bibliometric study from a global perspective

Chengliang Wang 1 ,
Xiaojiao Chen 1 ,
Teng Yu ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-5198-7261 2 , 3 ,
Yidan Liu 1 , 4 &
Yuhui Jing 1

Humanities and Social Sciences Communications volume 11 , Article number: 256 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

5191 Accesses

2 Citations

1 Altmetric

Metrics details

Development studies
Science, technology and society

Amidst the global digital transformation of educational institutions, digital technology has emerged as a significant area of interest among scholars. Such technologies have played an instrumental role in enhancing learner performance and improving the effectiveness of teaching and learning. These digital technologies also ensure the sustainability and stability of education during the epidemic. Despite this, a dearth of systematic reviews exists regarding the current state of digital technology application in education. To address this gap, this study utilized the Web of Science Core Collection as a data source (specifically selecting the high-quality SSCI and SCIE) and implemented a topic search by setting keywords, yielding 1849 initial publications. Furthermore, following the PRISMA guidelines, we refined the selection to 588 high-quality articles. Using software tools such as CiteSpace, VOSviewer, and Charticulator, we reviewed these 588 publications to identify core authors (such as Selwyn, Henderson, Edwards), highly productive countries/regions (England, Australia, USA), key institutions (Monash University, Australian Catholic University), and crucial journals in the field ( Education and Information Technologies , Computers & Education , British Journal of Educational Technology ). Evolutionary analysis reveals four developmental periods in the research field of digital technology education application: the embryonic period, the preliminary development period, the key exploration, and the acceleration period of change. The study highlights the dual influence of technological factors and historical context on the research topic. Technology is a key factor in enabling education to transform and upgrade, and the context of the times is an important driving force in promoting the adoption of new technologies in the education system and the transformation and upgrading of education. Additionally, the study identifies three frontier hotspots in the field: physical education, digital transformation, and professional development under the promotion of digital technology. This study presents a clear framework for digital technology application in education, which can serve as a valuable reference for researchers and educational practitioners concerned with digital technology education application in theory and practice.

Determinants of behaviour and their efficacy as targets of behavioural change interventions

Entropy, irreversibility and inference at the foundations of statistical physics

Impact of artificial intelligence on human loss in decision making, laziness and safety in education

Introduction.

Digital technology has become an essential component of modern education, facilitating the extension of temporal and spatial boundaries and enriching the pedagogical contexts (Selwyn and Facer, 2014 ). The advent of mobile communication technology has enabled learning through social media platforms (Szeto et al. 2015 ; Pires et al. 2022 ), while the advancement of augmented reality technology has disrupted traditional conceptions of learning environments and spaces (Perez-Sanagustin et al., 2014 ; Kyza and Georgiou, 2018 ). A wide range of digital technologies has enabled learning to become a norm in various settings, including the workplace (Sjöberg and Holmgren, 2021 ), home (Nazare et al. 2022 ), and online communities (Tang and Lam, 2014 ). Education is no longer limited to fixed locations and schedules, but has permeated all aspects of life, allowing learning to continue at any time and any place (Camilleri and Camilleri, 2016 ; Selwyn and Facer, 2014 ).

The advent of digital technology has led to the creation of several informal learning environments (Greenhow and Lewin, 2015 ) that exhibit divergent form, function, features, and patterns in comparison to conventional learning environments (Nygren et al. 2019 ). Consequently, the associated teaching and learning processes, as well as the strategies for the creation, dissemination, and acquisition of learning resources, have undergone a complete overhaul. The ensuing transformations have posed a myriad of novel issues, such as the optimal structuring of teaching methods by instructors and the adoption of appropriate learning strategies by students in the new digital technology environment. Consequently, an examination of the principles that underpin effective teaching and learning in this environment is a topic of significant interest to numerous scholars engaged in digital technology education research.

Over the course of the last two decades, digital technology has made significant strides in the field of education, notably in extending education time and space and creating novel educational contexts with sustainability. Despite research attempts to consolidate the application of digital technology in education, previous studies have only focused on specific aspects of digital technology, such as Pinto and Leite’s ( 2020 ) investigation into digital technology in higher education and Mustapha et al.’s ( 2021 ) examination of the role and value of digital technology in education during the pandemic. While these studies have provided valuable insights into the practical applications of digital technology in particular educational domains, they have not comprehensively explored the macro-mechanisms and internal logic of digital technology implementation in education. Additionally, these studies were conducted over a relatively brief period, making it challenging to gain a comprehensive understanding of the macro-dynamics and evolutionary process of digital technology in education. Some studies have provided an overview of digital education from an educational perspective but lack a precise understanding of technological advancement and change (Yang et al. 2022 ). Therefore, this study seeks to employ a systematic scientific approach to collate relevant research from 2000 to 2022, comprehend the internal logic and development trends of digital technology in education, and grasp the outstanding contribution of digital technology in promoting the sustainability of education in time and space. In summary, this study aims to address the following questions:

RQ1: Since the turn of the century, what is the productivity distribution of the field of digital technology education application research in terms of authorship, country/region, institutional and journal level?

RQ2: What is the development trend of research on the application of digital technology in education in the past two decades?

RQ3: What are the current frontiers of research on the application of digital technology in education?

Literature review

Although the term “digital technology” has become ubiquitous, a unified definition has yet to be agreed upon by scholars. Because the meaning of the word digital technology is closely related to the specific context. Within the educational research domain, Selwyn’s ( 2016 ) definition is widely favored by scholars (Pinto and Leite, 2020 ). Selwyn ( 2016 ) provides a comprehensive view of various concrete digital technologies and their applications in education through ten specific cases, such as immediate feedback in classes, orchestrating teaching, and community learning. Through these specific application scenarios, Selwyn ( 2016 ) argues that digital technology encompasses technologies associated with digital devices, including but not limited to tablets, smartphones, computers, and social media platforms (such as Facebook and YouTube). Furthermore, Further, the behavior of accessing the internet at any location through portable devices can be taken as an extension of the behavior of applying digital technology.

The evolving nature of digital technology has significant implications in the field of education. In the 1890s, the focus of digital technology in education was on comprehending the nuances of digital space, digital culture, and educational methodologies, with its connotations aligned more towards the idea of e-learning. The advent and subsequent widespread usage of mobile devices since the dawn of the new millennium have been instrumental in the rapid expansion of the concept of digital technology. Notably, mobile learning devices such as smartphones and tablets, along with social media platforms, have become integral components of digital technology (Conole and Alevizou, 2010 ; Batista et al. 2016 ). In recent times, the burgeoning application of AI technology in the education sector has played a vital role in enriching the digital technology lexicon (Banerjee et al. 2021 ). ChatGPT, for instance, is identified as a novel educational technology that has immense potential to revolutionize future education (Rospigliosi, 2023 ; Arif, Munaf and Ul-Haque, 2023 ).

Pinto and Leite ( 2020 ) conducted a comprehensive macroscopic survey of the use of digital technologies in the education sector and identified three distinct categories, namely technologies for assessment and feedback, mobile technologies, and Information Communication Technologies (ICT). This classification criterion is both macroscopic and highly condensed. In light of the established concept definitions of digital technology in the educational research literature, this study has adopted the characterizations of digital technology proposed by Selwyn ( 2016 ) and Pinto and Leite ( 2020 ) as crucial criteria for analysis and research inclusion. Specifically, this criterion encompasses several distinct types of digital technologies, including Information and Communication Technologies (ICT), Mobile tools, eXtended Reality (XR) Technologies, Assessment and Feedback systems, Learning Management Systems (LMS), Publish and Share tools, Collaborative systems, Social media, Interpersonal Communication tools, and Content Aggregation tools.

Methodology and materials

Research method: bibliometric.

The research on econometric properties has been present in various aspects of human production and life, yet systematic scientific theoretical guidance has been lacking, resulting in disorganization. In 1969, British scholar Pritchard ( 1969 ) proposed “bibliometrics,” which subsequently emerged as an independent discipline in scientific quantification research. Initially, Pritchard defined bibliometrics as “the application of mathematical and statistical methods to books and other media of communication,” however, the definition was not entirely rigorous. To remedy this, Hawkins ( 2001 ) expanded Pritchard’s definition to “the quantitative analysis of the bibliographic features of a body of literature.” De Bellis further clarified the objectives of bibliometrics, stating that it aims to analyze and identify patterns in literature, such as the most productive authors, institutions, countries, and journals in scientific disciplines, trends in literary production over time, and collaboration networks (De Bellis, 2009 ). According to Garfield ( 2006 ), bibliometric research enables the examination of the history and structure of a field, the flow of information within the field, the impact of journals, and the citation status of publications over a longer time scale. All of these definitions illustrate the unique role of bibliometrics as a research method for evaluating specific research fields.

This study uses CiteSpace, VOSviewer, and Charticulator to analyze data and create visualizations. Each of these three tools has its own strengths and can complement each other. CiteSpace and VOSviewer use set theory and probability theory to provide various visualization views in fields such as keywords, co-occurrence, and co-authors. They are easy to use and produce visually appealing graphics (Chen, 2006 ; van Eck and Waltman, 2009 ) and are currently the two most widely used bibliometric tools in the field of visualization (Pan et al. 2018 ). In this study, VOSviewer provided the data necessary for the Performance Analysis; Charticulator was then used to redraw using the tabular data exported from VOSviewer (for creating the chord diagram of country collaboration); this was to complement the mapping process, while CiteSpace was primarily utilized to generate keyword maps and conduct burst word analysis.

Data retrieval

This study selected documents from the Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE) and Social Science Citation Index (SSCI) in the Web of Science Core Collection as the data source, for the following reasons:

(1) The Web of Science Core Collection, as a high-quality digital literature resource database, has been widely accepted by many researchers and is currently considered the most suitable database for bibliometric analysis (Jing et al. 2023a ). Compared to other databases, Web of Science provides more comprehensive data information (Chen et al. 2022a ), and also provides data formats suitable for analysis using VOSviewer and CiteSpace (Gaviria-Marin et al. 2019 ).

(2) The application of digital technology in the field of education is an interdisciplinary research topic, involving technical knowledge literature belonging to the natural sciences and education-related literature belonging to the social sciences. Therefore, it is necessary to select Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE) and Social Science Citation Index (SSCI) as the sources of research data, ensuring the comprehensiveness of data while ensuring the reliability and persuasiveness of bibliometric research (Hwang and Tsai, 2011 ; Wang et al. 2022 ).

After establishing the source of research data, it is necessary to determine a retrieval strategy (Jing et al. 2023b ). The choice of a retrieval strategy should consider a balance between the breadth and precision of the search formula. That is to say, it should encompass all the literature pertaining to the research topic while excluding irrelevant documents as much as possible. In light of this, this study has set a retrieval strategy informed by multiple related papers (Mustapha et al. 2021 ; Luo et al. 2021 ). The research by Mustapha et al. ( 2021 ) guided us in selecting keywords (“digital” AND “technolog*”) to target digital technology, while Luo et al. ( 2021 ) informed the selection of terms (such as “instruct*,” “teach*,” and “education”) to establish links with the field of education. Then, based on the current application of digital technology in the educational domain and the scope of selection criteria, we constructed the final retrieval strategy. Following the general patterns of past research (Jing et al. 2023a , 2023b ), we conducted a specific screening using the topic search (Topics, TS) function in Web of Science. For the specific criteria used in the screening for this study, please refer to Table 1 .

Literature screening

Literature acquired through keyword searches may contain ostensibly related yet actually unrelated works. Therefore, to ensure the close relevance of literature included in the analysis to the research topic, it is often necessary to perform a manual screening process to identify the final literature to be analyzed, subsequent to completing the initial literature search.

The manual screening process consists of two steps. Initially, irrelevant literature is weeded out based on the title and abstract, with two members of the research team involved in this phase. This stage lasted about one week, resulting in 1106 articles being retained. Subsequently, a comprehensive review of the full text is conducted to accurately identify the literature required for the study. To carry out the second phase of manual screening effectively and scientifically, and to minimize the potential for researcher bias, the research team established the inclusion criteria presented in Table 2 . Three members were engaged in this phase, which took approximately 2 weeks, culminating in the retention of 588 articles after meticulous screening. The entire screening process is depicted in Fig. 1 , adhering to the PRISMA guidelines (Page et al. 2021 ).

The process of obtaining and filtering the necessary literature data for research.

Data standardization

Nguyen and Hallinger ( 2020 ) pointed out that raw data extracted from scientific databases often contains multiple expressions of the same term, and not addressing these synonymous expressions could affect research results in bibliometric analysis. For instance, in the original data, the author list may include “Tsai, C. C.” and “Tsai, C.-C.”, while the keyword list may include “professional-development” and “professional development,” which often require merging. Therefore, before analyzing the selected literature, a data disambiguation process is necessary to standardize the data (Strotmann and Zhao, 2012 ; Van Eck and Waltman, 2019 ). This study adopted the data standardization process proposed by Taskin and Al ( 2019 ), mainly including the following standardization operations:

Firstly, the author and source fields in the data are corrected and standardized to differentiate authors with similar names.

Secondly, the study checks whether the journals to which the literature belongs have been renamed in the past over 20 years, so as to avoid the influence of periodical name change on the analysis results.

Finally, the keyword field is standardized by unifying parts of speech and singular/plural forms of keywords, which can help eliminate redundant entries in the knowledge graph.

Performance analysis (RQ1)

This section offers a thorough and detailed analysis of the state of research in the field of digital technology education. By utilizing descriptive statistics and visual maps, it provides a comprehensive overview of the development trends, authors, countries, institutions, and journal distribution within the field. The insights presented in this section are of great significance in advancing our understanding of the current state of research in this field and identifying areas for further investigation. The use of visual aids to display inter-country cooperation and the evolution of the field adds to the clarity and coherence of the analysis.

Time trend of the publications

To understand a research field, it is first necessary to understand the most basic quantitative information, among which the change in the number of publications per year best reflects the development trend of a research field. Figure 2 shows the distribution of publication dates.

Time trend of the publications on application of digital technology in education.

From the Fig. 2 , it can be seen that the development of this field over the past over 20 years can be roughly divided into three stages. The first stage was from 2000 to 2007, during which the number of publications was relatively low. Due to various factors such as technological maturity, the academic community did not pay widespread attention to the role of digital technology in expanding the scope of teaching and learning. The second stage was from 2008 to 2019, during which the overall number of publications showed an upward trend, and the development of the field entered an accelerated period, attracting more and more scholars’ attention. The third stage was from 2020 to 2022, during which the number of publications stabilized at around 100. During this period, the impact of the pandemic led to a large number of scholars focusing on the role of digital technology in education during the pandemic, and research on the application of digital technology in education became a core topic in social science research.

Analysis of authors

An analysis of the author’s publication volume provides information about the representative scholars and core research strengths of a research area. Table 3 presents information on the core authors in adaptive learning research, including name, publication number, and average number of citations per article (based on the analysis and statistics from VOSviewer).

Variations in research foci among scholars abound. Within the field of digital technology education application research over the past two decades, Neil Selwyn stands as the most productive author, having published 15 papers garnering a total of 1027 citations, resulting in an average of 68.47 citations per paper. As a Professor at the Faculty of Education at Monash University, Selwyn concentrates on exploring the application of digital technology in higher education contexts (Selwyn et al. 2021 ), as well as related products in higher education such as Coursera, edX, and Udacity MOOC platforms (Bulfin et al. 2014 ). Selwyn’s contributions to the educational sociology perspective include extensive research on the impact of digital technology on education, highlighting the spatiotemporal extension of educational processes and practices through technological means as the greatest value of educational technology (Selwyn, 2012 ; Selwyn and Facer, 2014 ). In addition, he provides a blueprint for the development of future schools in 2030 based on the present impact of digital technology on education (Selwyn et al. 2019 ). The second most productive author in this field, Henderson, also offers significant contributions to the understanding of the important value of digital technology in education, specifically in the higher education setting, with a focus on the impact of the pandemic (Henderson et al. 2015 ; Cohen et al. 2022 ). In contrast, Edwards’ research interests focus on early childhood education, particularly the application of digital technology in this context (Edwards, 2013 ; Bird and Edwards, 2015 ). Additionally, on the technical level, Edwards also mainly prefers digital game technology, because it is a digital technology that children are relatively easy to accept (Edwards, 2015 ).

Analysis of countries/regions and organization

The present study aimed to ascertain the leading countries in digital technology education application research by analyzing 75 countries related to 558 works of literature. Table 4 depicts the top ten countries that have contributed significantly to this field in terms of publication count (based on the analysis and statistics from VOSviewer). Our analysis of Table 4 data shows that England emerged as the most influential country/region, with 92 published papers and 2401 citations. Australia and the United States secured the second and third ranks, respectively, with 90 papers (2187 citations) and 70 papers (1331 citations) published. Geographically, most of the countries featured in the top ten publication volumes are situated in Australia, North America, and Europe, with China being the only exception. Notably, all these countries, except China, belong to the group of developed nations, suggesting that economic strength is a prerequisite for fostering research in the digital technology education application field.

This study presents a visual representation of the publication output and cooperation relationships among different countries in the field of digital technology education application research. Specifically, a chord diagram is employed to display the top 30 countries in terms of publication output, as depicted in Fig. 3 . The chord diagram is composed of nodes and chords, where the nodes are positioned as scattered points along the circumference, and the length of each node corresponds to the publication output, with longer lengths indicating higher publication output. The chords, on the other hand, represent the cooperation relationships between any two countries, and are weighted based on the degree of closeness of the cooperation, with wider chords indicating closer cooperation. Through the analysis of the cooperation relationships, the findings suggest that the main publishing countries in this field are engaged in cooperative relationships with each other, indicating a relatively high level of international academic exchange and research internationalization.

In the diagram, nodes are scattered along the circumference of a circle, with the length of each node representing the volume of publications. The weighted arcs connecting any two points on the circle are known as chords, representing the collaborative relationship between the two, with the width of the arc indicating the closeness of the collaboration.

Further analyzing Fig. 3 , we can extract more valuable information, enabling a deeper understanding of the connections between countries in the research field of digital technology in educational applications. It is evident that certain countries, such as the United States, China, and England, display thicker connections, indicating robust collaborative relationships in terms of productivity. These thicker lines signify substantial mutual contributions and shared objectives in certain sectors or fields, highlighting the interconnectedness and global integration in these areas. By delving deeper, we can also explore potential future collaboration opportunities through the chord diagram, identifying possible partners to propel research and development in this field. In essence, the chord diagram successfully encapsulates and conveys the multi-dimensionality of global productivity and cooperation, allowing for a comprehensive understanding of the intricate inter-country relationships and networks in a global context, providing valuable guidance and insights for future research and collaborations.

An in-depth examination of the publishing institutions is provided in Table 5 , showcasing the foremost 10 institutions ranked by their publication volume. Notably, Monash University and Australian Catholic University, situated in Australia, have recorded the most prolific publications within the digital technology education application realm, with 22 and 10 publications respectively. Moreover, the University of Oslo from Norway is featured among the top 10 publishing institutions, with an impressive average citation count of 64 per publication. It is worth highlighting that six institutions based in the United Kingdom were also ranked within the top 10 publishing institutions, signifying their leading position in this area of research.

Analysis of journals

Journals are the main carriers for publishing high-quality papers. Some scholars point out that the two key factors to measure the influence of journals in the specified field are the number of articles published and the number of citations. The more papers published in a magazine and the more citations, the greater its influence (Dzikowski, 2018 ). Therefore, this study utilized VOSviewer to statistically analyze the top 10 journals with the most publications in the field of digital technology in education and calculated the average citations per article (see Table 6 ).

Based on Table 6 , it is apparent that the highest number of articles in the domain of digital technology in education research were published in Education and Information Technologies (47 articles), Computers & Education (34 articles), and British Journal of Educational Technology (32 articles), indicating a higher article output compared to other journals. This underscores the fact that these three journals concentrate more on the application of digital technology in education. Furthermore, several other journals, such as Technology Pedagogy and Education and Sustainability, have published more than 15 articles in this domain. Sustainability represents the open access movement, which has notably facilitated research progress in this field, indicating that the development of open access journals in recent years has had a significant impact. Although there is still considerable disagreement among scholars on the optimal approach to achieve open access, the notion that research outcomes should be accessible to all is widely recognized (Huang et al. 2020 ). On further analysis of the research fields to which these journals belong, except for Sustainability, it is evident that they all pertain to educational technology, thus providing a qualitative definition of the research area of digital technology education from the perspective of journals.

Temporal keyword analysis: thematic evolution (RQ2)

The evolution of research themes is a dynamic process, and previous studies have attempted to present the developmental trajectory of fields by drawing keyword networks in phases (Kumar et al. 2021 ; Chen et al. 2022b ). To understand the shifts in research topics across different periods, this study follows past research and, based on the significant changes in the research field and corresponding technological advancements during the outlined periods, divides the timeline into four stages (the first stage from January 2000 to December 2005, the second stage from January 2006 to December 2011, the third stage from January 2012 to December 2017; and the fourth stage from January 2018 to December 2022). The division into these four stages was determined through a combination of bibliometric analysis and literature review, which presented a clear trajectory of the field’s development. The research analyzes the keyword networks for each time period (as there are only three articles in the first stage, it was not possible to generate an appropriate keyword co-occurrence map, hence only the keyword co-occurrence maps from the second to the fourth stages are provided), to understand the evolutionary track of the digital technology education application research field over time.

2000.1–2005.12: germination period

From January 2000 to December 2005, digital technology education application research was in its infancy. Only three studies focused on digital technology, all of which were related to computers. Due to the popularity of computers, the home became a new learning environment, highlighting the important role of digital technology in expanding the scope of learning spaces (Sutherland et al. 2000 ). In specific disciplines and contexts, digital technology was first favored in medical clinical practice, becoming an important tool for supporting the learning of clinical knowledge and practice (Tegtmeyer et al. 2001 ; Durfee et al. 2003 ).

2006.1–2011.12: initial development period

Between January 2006 and December 2011, it was the initial development period of digital technology education research. Significant growth was observed in research related to digital technology, and discussions and theoretical analyses about “digital natives” emerged. During this phase, scholars focused on the debate about “how to use digital technology reasonably” and “whether current educational models and school curriculum design need to be adjusted on a large scale” (Bennett and Maton, 2010 ; Selwyn, 2009 ; Margaryan et al. 2011 ). These theoretical and speculative arguments provided a unique perspective on the impact of cognitive digital technology on education and teaching. As can be seen from the vocabulary such as “rethinking”, “disruptive pedagogy”, and “attitude” in Fig. 4 , many scholars joined the calm reflection and analysis under the trend of digital technology (Laurillard, 2008 ; Vratulis et al. 2011 ). During this phase, technology was still undergoing dramatic changes. The development of mobile technology had already caught the attention of many scholars (Wong et al. 2011 ), but digital technology represented by computers was still very active (Selwyn et al. 2011 ). The change in technological form would inevitably lead to educational transformation. Collins and Halverson ( 2010 ) summarized the prospects and challenges of using digital technology for learning and educational practices, believing that digital technology would bring a disruptive revolution to the education field and bring about a new educational system. In addition, the term “teacher education” in Fig. 4 reflects the impact of digital technology development on teachers. The rapid development of technology has widened the generation gap between teachers and students. To ensure smooth communication between teachers and students, teachers must keep up with the trend of technological development and establish a lifelong learning concept (Donnison, 2009 ).

In the diagram, each node represents a keyword, with the size of the node indicating the frequency of occurrence of the keyword. The connections represent the co-occurrence relationships between keywords, with a higher frequency of co-occurrence resulting in tighter connections.

2012.1–2017.12: critical exploration period

During the period spanning January 2012 to December 2017, the application of digital technology in education research underwent a significant exploration phase. As can be seen from Fig. 5 , different from the previous stage, the specific elements of specific digital technology have started to increase significantly, including the enrichment of technological contexts, the greater variety of research methods, and the diversification of learning modes. Moreover, the temporal and spatial dimensions of the learning environment were further de-emphasized, as noted in previous literature (Za et al. 2014 ). Given the rapidly accelerating pace of technological development, the education system in the digital era is in urgent need of collaborative evolution and reconstruction, as argued by Davis, Eickelmann, and Zaka ( 2013 ).

In the domain of digital technology, social media has garnered substantial scholarly attention as a promising avenue for learning, as noted by Pasquini and Evangelopoulos ( 2016 ). The implementation of social media in education presents several benefits, including the liberation of education from the restrictions of physical distance and time, as well as the erasure of conventional educational boundaries. The user-generated content (UGC) model in social media has emerged as a crucial source for knowledge creation and distribution, with the widespread adoption of mobile devices. Moreover, social networks have become an integral component of ubiquitous learning environments (Hwang et al. 2013 ). The utilization of social media allows individuals to function as both knowledge producers and recipients, which leads to a blurring of the conventional roles of learners and teachers. On mobile platforms, the roles of learners and teachers are not fixed, but instead interchangeable.

In terms of research methodology, the prevalence of empirical studies with survey designs in the field of educational technology during this period is evident from the vocabulary used, such as “achievement,” “acceptance,” “attitude,” and “ict.” in Fig. 5 . These studies aim to understand learners’ willingness to adopt and attitudes towards new technologies, and some seek to investigate the impact of digital technologies on learning outcomes through quasi-experimental designs (Domínguez et al. 2013 ). Among these empirical studies, mobile learning emerged as a hot topic, and this is not surprising. First, the advantages of mobile learning environments over traditional ones have been empirically demonstrated (Hwang et al. 2013 ). Second, learners born around the turn of the century have been heavily influenced by digital technologies and have developed their own learning styles that are more open to mobile devices as a means of learning. Consequently, analyzing mobile learning as a relatively novel mode of learning has become an important issue for scholars in the field of educational technology.

The intervention of technology has led to the emergence of several novel learning modes, with the blended learning model being the most representative one in the current phase. Blended learning, a novel concept introduced in the information age, emphasizes the integration of the benefits of traditional learning methods and online learning. This learning mode not only highlights the prominent role of teachers in guiding, inspiring, and monitoring the learning process but also underlines the importance of learners’ initiative, enthusiasm, and creativity in the learning process. Despite being an early conceptualization, blended learning’s meaning has been expanded by the widespread use of mobile technology and social media in education. The implementation of new technologies, particularly mobile devices, has resulted in the transformation of curriculum design and increased flexibility and autonomy in students’ learning processes (Trujillo Maza et al. 2016 ), rekindling scholarly attention to this learning mode. However, some scholars have raised concerns about the potential drawbacks of the blended learning model, such as its significant impact on the traditional teaching system, the lack of systematic coping strategies and relevant policies in several schools and regions (Moskal et al. 2013 ).

2018.1–2022.12: accelerated transformation period

The period spanning from January 2018 to December 2022 witnessed a rapid transformation in the application of digital technology in education research. The field of digital technology education research reached a peak period of publication, largely influenced by factors such as the COVID-19 pandemic (Yu et al. 2023 ). Research during this period was built upon the achievements, attitudes, and social media of the previous phase, and included more elements that reflect the characteristics of this research field, such as digital literacy, digital competence, and professional development, as depicted in Fig. 6 . Alongside this, scholars’ expectations for the value of digital technology have expanded, and the pursuit of improving learning efficiency and performance is no longer the sole focus. Some research now aims to cultivate learners’ motivation and enhance their self-efficacy by applying digital technology in a reasonable manner, as demonstrated by recent studies (Beardsley et al. 2021 ; Creely et al. 2021 ).

The COVID-19 pandemic has emerged as a crucial backdrop for the digital technology’s role in sustaining global education, as highlighted by recent scholarly research (Zhou et al. 2022 ; Pan and Zhang, 2020 ; Mo et al. 2022 ). The online learning environment, which is supported by digital technology, has become the primary battleground for global education (Yu, 2022 ). This social context has led to various studies being conducted, with some scholars positing that the pandemic has impacted the traditional teaching order while also expanding learning possibilities in terms of patterns and forms (Alabdulaziz, 2021 ). Furthermore, the pandemic has acted as a catalyst for teacher teaching and technological innovation, and this viewpoint has been empirically substantiated (Moorhouse and Wong, 2021 ). Additionally, some scholars believe that the pandemic’s push is a crucial driving force for the digital transformation of the education system, serving as an essential mechanism for overcoming the system’s inertia (Romero et al. 2021 ).

The rapid outbreak of the pandemic posed a challenge to the large-scale implementation of digital technologies, which was influenced by a complex interplay of subjective and objective factors. Objective constraints included the lack of infrastructure in some regions to support digital technologies, while subjective obstacles included psychological resistance among certain students and teachers (Moorhouse, 2021 ). These factors greatly impacted the progress of online learning during the pandemic. Additionally, Timotheou et al. ( 2023 ) conducted a comprehensive systematic review of existing research on digital technology use during the pandemic, highlighting the critical role played by various factors such as learners’ and teachers’ digital skills, teachers’ personal attributes and professional development, school leadership and management, and administration in facilitating the digitalization and transformation of schools.

The current stage of research is characterized by the pivotal term “digital literacy,” denoting a growing interest in learners’ attitudes and adoption of emerging technologies. Initially, the term “literacy” was restricted to fundamental abilities and knowledge associated with books and print materials (McMillan, 1996 ). However, with the swift advancement of computers and digital technology, there have been various attempts to broaden the scope of literacy beyond its traditional meaning, including game literacy (Buckingham and Burn, 2007 ), information literacy (Eisenberg, 2008 ), and media literacy (Turin and Friesem, 2020 ). Similarly, digital literacy has emerged as a crucial concept, and Gilster and Glister ( 1997 ) were the first to introduce this concept, referring to the proficiency in utilizing technology and processing digital information in academic, professional, and daily life settings. In practical educational settings, learners who possess higher digital literacy often exhibit an aptitude for quickly mastering digital devices and applying them intelligently to education and teaching (Yu, 2022 ).

The utilization of digital technology in education has undergone significant changes over the past two decades, and has been a crucial driver of educational reform with each new technological revolution. The impact of these changes on the underlying logic of digital technology education applications has been noticeable. From computer technology to more recent developments such as virtual reality (VR), augmented reality (AR), and artificial intelligence (AI), the acceleration in digital technology development has been ongoing. Educational reforms spurred by digital technology development continue to be dynamic, as each new digital innovation presents new possibilities and models for teaching practice. This is especially relevant in the post-pandemic era, where the importance of technological progress in supporting teaching cannot be overstated (Mughal et al. 2022 ). Existing digital technologies have already greatly expanded the dimensions of education in both time and space, while future digital technologies aim to expand learners’ perceptions. Researchers have highlighted the potential of integrated technology and immersive technology in the development of the educational metaverse, which is highly anticipated to create a new dimension for the teaching and learning environment, foster a new value system for the discipline of educational technology, and more effectively and efficiently achieve the grand educational blueprint of the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (Zhang et al. 2022 ; Li and Yu, 2023 ).

Hotspot evolution analysis (RQ3)

The examination of keyword evolution reveals a consistent trend in the advancement of digital technology education application research. The emergence and transformation of keywords serve as indicators of the varying research interests in this field. Thus, the utilization of the burst detection function available in CiteSpace allowed for the identification of the top 10 burst words that exhibited a high level of burst strength. This outcome is illustrated in Table 7 .

According to the results presented in Table 7 , the explosive terminology within the realm of digital technology education research has exhibited a concentration mainly between the years 2018 and 2022. Prior to this time frame, the emerging keywords were limited to “information technology” and “computer”. Notably, among them, computer, as an emergent keyword, has always had a high explosive intensity from 2008 to 2018, which reflects the important position of computer in digital technology and is the main carrier of many digital technologies such as Learning Management Systems (LMS) and Assessment and Feedback systems (Barlovits et al. 2022 ).

Since 2018, an increasing number of research studies have focused on evaluating the capabilities of learners to accept, apply, and comprehend digital technologies. As indicated by the use of terms such as “digital literacy” and “digital skill,” the assessment of learners’ digital literacy has become a critical task. Scholarly efforts have been directed towards the development of literacy assessment tools and the implementation of empirical assessments. Furthermore, enhancing the digital literacy of both learners and educators has garnered significant attention. (Nagle, 2018 ; Yu, 2022 ). Simultaneously, given the widespread use of various digital technologies in different formal and informal learning settings, promoting learners’ digital skills has become a crucial objective for contemporary schools (Nygren et al. 2019 ; Forde and OBrien, 2022 ).

Since 2020, the field of applied research on digital technology education has witnessed the emergence of three new hotspots, all of which have been affected to some extent by the pandemic. Firstly, digital technology has been widely applied in physical education, which is one of the subjects that has been severely affected by the pandemic (Parris et al. 2022 ; Jiang and Ning, 2022 ). Secondly, digital transformation has become an important measure for most schools, especially higher education institutions, to cope with the impact of the pandemic globally (García-Morales et al. 2021 ). Although the concept of digital transformation was proposed earlier, the COVID-19 pandemic has greatly accelerated this transformation process. Educational institutions must carefully redesign their educational products to face this new situation, providing timely digital learning methods, environments, tools, and support systems that have far-reaching impacts on modern society (Krishnamurthy, 2020 ; Salas-Pilco et al. 2022 ). Moreover, the professional development of teachers has become a key mission of educational institutions in the post-pandemic era. Teachers need to have a certain level of digital literacy and be familiar with the tools and online teaching resources used in online teaching, which has become a research hotspot today. Organizing digital skills training for teachers to cope with the application of emerging technologies in education is an important issue for teacher professional development and lifelong learning (Garzón-Artacho et al. 2021 ). As the main organizers and practitioners of emergency remote teaching (ERT) during the pandemic, teachers must put cognitive effort into their professional development to ensure effective implementation of ERT (Romero-Hall and Jaramillo Cherrez, 2022 ).

The burst word “digital transformation” reveals that we are in the midst of an ongoing digital technology revolution. With the emergence of innovative digital technologies such as ChatGPT and Microsoft 365 Copilot, technology trends will continue to evolve, albeit unpredictably. While the impact of these advancements on school education remains uncertain, it is anticipated that the widespread integration of technology will significantly affect the current education system. Rejecting emerging technologies without careful consideration is unwise. Like any revolution, the technological revolution in the education field has both positive and negative aspects. Detractors argue that digital technology disrupts learning and memory (Baron, 2021 ) or causes learners to become addicted and distracted from learning (Selwyn and Aagaard, 2020 ). On the other hand, the prudent use of digital technology in education offers a glimpse of a golden age of open learning. Educational leaders and practitioners have the opportunity to leverage cutting-edge digital technologies to address current educational challenges and develop a rational path for the sustainable and healthy growth of education.

Discussion on performance analysis (RQ1)

The field of digital technology education application research has experienced substantial growth since the turn of the century, a phenomenon that is quantifiably apparent through an analysis of authorship, country/region contributions, and institutional engagement. This expansion reflects the increased integration of digital technologies in educational settings and the heightened scholarly interest in understanding and optimizing their use.

Discussion on authorship productivity in digital technology education research

The authorship distribution within digital technology education research is indicative of the field’s intellectual structure and depth. A primary figure in this domain is Neil Selwyn, whose substantial citation rate underscores the profound impact of his work. His focus on the implications of digital technology in higher education and educational sociology has proven to be seminal. Selwyn’s research trajectory, especially the exploration of spatiotemporal extensions of education through technology, provides valuable insights into the multifaceted role of digital tools in learning processes (Selwyn et al. 2019 ).

Other notable contributors, like Henderson and Edwards, present diversified research interests, such as the impact of digital technologies during the pandemic and their application in early childhood education, respectively. Their varied focuses highlight the breadth of digital technology education research, encompassing pedagogical innovation, technological adaptation, and policy development.

Discussion on country/region-level productivity and collaboration

At the country/region level, the United Kingdom, specifically England, emerges as a leading contributor with 92 published papers and a significant citation count. This is closely followed by Australia and the United States, indicating a strong English-speaking research axis. Such geographical concentration of scholarly output often correlates with investment in research and development, technological infrastructure, and the prevalence of higher education institutions engaging in cutting-edge research.

China’s notable inclusion as the only non-Western country among the top contributors to the field suggests a growing research capacity and interest in digital technology in education. However, the lower average citation per paper for China could reflect emerging engagement or different research focuses that may not yet have achieved the same international recognition as Western counterparts.

The chord diagram analysis furthers this understanding, revealing dense interconnections between countries like the United States, China, and England, which indicates robust collaborations. Such collaborations are fundamental in addressing global educational challenges and shaping international research agendas.

Discussion on institutional-level contributions to digital technology education

Institutional productivity in digital technology education research reveals a constellation of universities driving the field forward. Monash University and the Australian Catholic University have the highest publication output, signaling Australia’s significant role in advancing digital education research. The University of Oslo’s remarkable average citation count per publication indicates influential research contributions, potentially reflecting high-quality studies that resonate with the broader academic community.

The strong showing of UK institutions, including the University of London, The Open University, and the University of Cambridge, reinforces the UK’s prominence in this research field. Such institutions are often at the forefront of pedagogical innovation, benefiting from established research cultures and funding mechanisms that support sustained inquiry into digital education.

Discussion on journal publication analysis

An examination of journal outputs offers a lens into the communicative channels of the field’s knowledge base. Journals such as Education and Information Technologies , Computers & Education , and the British Journal of Educational Technology not only serve as the primary disseminators of research findings but also as indicators of research quality and relevance. The impact factor (IF) serves as a proxy for the quality and influence of these journals within the academic community.

The high citation counts for articles published in Computers & Education suggest that research disseminated through this medium has a wide-reaching impact and is of particular interest to the field. This is further evidenced by its significant IF of 11.182, indicating that the journal is a pivotal platform for seminal work in the application of digital technology in education.

The authorship, regional, and institutional productivity in the field of digital technology education application research collectively narrate the evolution of this domain since the turn of the century. The prominence of certain authors and countries underscores the importance of socioeconomic factors and existing academic infrastructure in fostering research productivity. Meanwhile, the centrality of specific journals as outlets for high-impact research emphasizes the role of academic publishing in shaping the research landscape.

As the field continues to grow, future research may benefit from leveraging the collaborative networks that have been elucidated through this analysis, perhaps focusing on underrepresented regions to broaden the scope and diversity of research. Furthermore, the stabilization of publication numbers in recent years invites a deeper exploration into potential plateaus in research trends or saturation in certain sub-fields, signaling an opportunity for novel inquiries and methodological innovations.

Discussion on the evolutionary trends (RQ2)

The evolution of the research field concerning the application of digital technology in education over the past two decades is a story of convergence, diversification, and transformation, shaped by rapid technological advancements and shifting educational paradigms.

At the turn of the century, the inception of digital technology in education was largely exploratory, with a focus on how emerging computer technologies could be harnessed to enhance traditional learning environments. Research from this early period was primarily descriptive, reflecting on the potential and challenges of incorporating digital tools into the educational setting. This phase was critical in establishing the fundamental discourse that would guide subsequent research, as it set the stage for understanding the scope and impact of digital technology in learning spaces (Wang et al. 2023 ).

As the first decade progressed, the narrative expanded to encompass the pedagogical implications of digital technologies. This was a period of conceptual debates, where terms like “digital natives” and “disruptive pedagogy” entered the academic lexicon, underscoring the growing acknowledgment of digital technology as a transformative force within education (Bennett and Maton, 2010 ). During this time, the research began to reflect a more nuanced understanding of the integration of technology, considering not only its potential to change where and how learning occurred but also its implications for educational equity and access.

In the second decade, with the maturation of internet connectivity and mobile technology, the focus of research shifted from theoretical speculations to empirical investigations. The proliferation of digital devices and the ubiquity of social media influenced how learners interacted with information and each other, prompting a surge in studies that sought to measure the impact of these tools on learning outcomes. The digital divide and issues related to digital literacy became central concerns, as scholars explored the varying capacities of students and educators to engage with technology effectively.

Throughout this period, there was an increasing emphasis on the individualization of learning experiences, facilitated by adaptive technologies that could cater to the unique needs and pacing of learners (Jing et al. 2023a ). This individualization was coupled with a growing recognition of the importance of collaborative learning, both online and offline, and the role of digital tools in supporting these processes. Blended learning models, which combined face-to-face instruction with online resources, emerged as a significant trend, advocating for a balance between traditional pedagogies and innovative digital strategies.

The later years, particularly marked by the COVID-19 pandemic, accelerated the necessity for digital technology in education, transforming it from a supplementary tool to an essential platform for delivering education globally (Mo et al. 2022 ; Mustapha et al. 2021 ). This era brought about an unprecedented focus on online learning environments, distance education, and virtual classrooms. Research became more granular, examining not just the pedagogical effectiveness of digital tools, but also their role in maintaining continuity of education during crises, their impact on teacher and student well-being, and their implications for the future of educational policy and infrastructure.

Across these two decades, the research field has seen a shift from examining digital technology as an external addition to the educational process, to viewing it as an integral component of curriculum design, instructional strategies, and even assessment methods. The emergent themes have broadened from a narrow focus on specific tools or platforms to include wider considerations such as data privacy, ethical use of technology, and the environmental impact of digital tools.

Moreover, the field has moved from considering the application of digital technology in education as a primarily cognitive endeavor to recognizing its role in facilitating socio-emotional learning, digital citizenship, and global competencies. Researchers have increasingly turned their attention to the ways in which technology can support collaborative skills, cultural understanding, and ethical reasoning within diverse student populations.

In summary, the past over twenty years in the research field of digital technology applications in education have been characterized by a progression from foundational inquiries to complex analyses of digital integration. This evolution has mirrored the trajectory of technology itself, from a facilitative tool to a pervasive ecosystem defining contemporary educational experiences. As we look to the future, the field is poised to delve into the implications of emerging technologies like AI, AR, and VR, and their potential to redefine the educational landscape even further. This ongoing metamorphosis suggests that the application of digital technology in education will continue to be a rich area of inquiry, demanding continual adaptation and forward-thinking from educators and researchers alike.

Discussion on the study of research hotspots (RQ3)

The analysis of keyword evolution in digital technology education application research elucidates the current frontiers in the field, reflecting a trajectory that is in tandem with the rapidly advancing digital age. This landscape is sculpted by emergent technological innovations and shaped by the demands of an increasingly digital society.

Interdisciplinary integration and pedagogical transformation

One of the frontiers identified from recent keyword bursts includes the integration of digital technology into diverse educational contexts, particularly noted with the keyword “physical education.” The digitalization of disciplines traditionally characterized by physical presence illustrates the pervasive reach of technology and signifies a push towards interdisciplinary integration where technology is not only a facilitator but also a transformative agent. This integration challenges educators to reconceptualize curriculum delivery to accommodate digital tools that can enhance or simulate the physical aspects of learning.

Digital literacy and skills acquisition

Another pivotal frontier is the focus on “digital literacy” and “digital skill”, which has intensified in recent years. This suggests a shift from mere access to technology towards a comprehensive understanding and utilization of digital tools. In this realm, the emphasis is not only on the ability to use technology but also on critical thinking, problem-solving, and the ethical use of digital resources (Yu, 2022 ). The acquisition of digital literacy is no longer an additive skill but a fundamental aspect of modern education, essential for navigating and contributing to the digital world.

Educational digital transformation

The keyword “digital transformation” marks a significant research frontier, emphasizing the systemic changes that education institutions must undergo to align with the digital era (Romero et al. 2021 ). This transformation includes the redesigning of learning environments, pedagogical strategies, and assessment methods to harness digital technology’s full potential. Research in this area explores the complexity of institutional change, addressing the infrastructural, cultural, and policy adjustments needed for a seamless digital transition.

Engagement and participation

Further exploration into “engagement” and “participation” underscores the importance of student-centered learning environments that are mediated by technology. The current frontiers examine how digital platforms can foster collaboration, inclusivity, and active learning, potentially leading to more meaningful and personalized educational experiences. Here, the use of technology seeks to support the emotional and cognitive aspects of learning, moving beyond the transactional view of education to one that is relational and interactive.

Professional development and teacher readiness

As the field evolves, “professional development” emerges as a crucial area, particularly in light of the pandemic which necessitated emergency remote teaching. The need for teacher readiness in a digital age is a pressing frontier, with research focusing on the competencies required for educators to effectively integrate technology into their teaching practices. This includes familiarity with digital tools, pedagogical innovation, and an ongoing commitment to personal and professional growth in the digital domain.

Pandemic as a catalyst

The recent pandemic has acted as a catalyst for accelerated research and application in this field, particularly in the domains of “digital transformation,” “professional development,” and “physical education.” This period has been a litmus test for the resilience and adaptability of educational systems to continue their operations in an emergency. Research has thus been directed at understanding how digital technologies can support not only continuity but also enhance the quality and reach of education in such contexts.

Ethical and societal considerations

The frontier of digital technology in education is also expanding to consider broader ethical and societal implications. This includes issues of digital equity, data privacy, and the sociocultural impact of technology on learning communities. The research explores how educational technology can be leveraged to address inequities and create more equitable learning opportunities for all students, regardless of their socioeconomic background.

Innovation and emerging technologies

Looking forward, the frontiers are set to be influenced by ongoing and future technological innovations, such as artificial intelligence (AI) (Wu and Yu, 2023 ; Chen et al. 2022a ). The exploration into how these technologies can be integrated into educational practices to create immersive and adaptive learning experiences represents a bold new chapter for the field.

In conclusion, the current frontiers of research on the application of digital technology in education are multifaceted and dynamic. They reflect an overarching movement towards deeper integration of technology in educational systems and pedagogical practices, where the goals are not only to facilitate learning but to redefine it. As these frontiers continue to expand and evolve, they will shape the educational landscape, requiring a concerted effort from researchers, educators, policymakers, and technologists to navigate the challenges and harness the opportunities presented by the digital revolution in education.

Conclusions and future research

Conclusions.

The utilization of digital technology in education is a research area that cuts across multiple technical and educational domains and continues to experience dynamic growth due to the continuous progress of technology. In this study, a systematic review of this field was conducted through bibliometric techniques to examine its development trajectory. The primary focus of the review was to investigate the leading contributors, productive national institutions, significant publications, and evolving development patterns. The study’s quantitative analysis resulted in several key conclusions that shed light on this research field’s current state and future prospects.

(1) The research field of digital technology education applications has entered a stage of rapid development, particularly in recent years due to the impact of the pandemic, resulting in a peak of publications. Within this field, several key authors (Selwyn, Henderson, Edwards, etc.) and countries/regions (England, Australia, USA, etc.) have emerged, who have made significant contributions. International exchanges in this field have become frequent, with a high degree of internationalization in academic research. Higher education institutions in the UK and Australia are the core productive forces in this field at the institutional level.

(2) Education and Information Technologies , Computers & Education , and the British Journal of Educational Technology are notable journals that publish research related to digital technology education applications. These journals are affiliated with the research field of educational technology and provide effective communication platforms for sharing digital technology education applications.

(3) Over the past two decades, research on digital technology education applications has progressed from its early stages of budding, initial development, and critical exploration to accelerated transformation, and it is currently approaching maturity. Technological progress and changes in the times have been key driving forces for educational transformation and innovation, and both have played important roles in promoting the continuous development of education.

(4) Influenced by the pandemic, three emerging frontiers have emerged in current research on digital technology education applications, which are physical education, digital transformation, and professional development under the promotion of digital technology. These frontier research hotspots reflect the core issues that the education system faces when encountering new technologies. The evolution of research hotspots shows that technology breakthroughs in education’s original boundaries of time and space create new challenges. The continuous self-renewal of education is achieved by solving one hotspot problem after another.

The present study offers significant practical implications for scholars and practitioners in the field of digital technology education applications. Firstly, it presents a well-defined framework of the existing research in this area, serving as a comprehensive guide for new entrants to the field and shedding light on the developmental trajectory of this research domain. Secondly, the study identifies several contemporary research hotspots, thus offering a valuable decision-making resource for scholars aiming to explore potential research directions. Thirdly, the study undertakes an exhaustive analysis of published literature to identify core journals in the field of digital technology education applications, with Sustainability being identified as a promising open access journal that publishes extensively on this topic. This finding can potentially facilitate scholars in selecting appropriate journals for their research outputs.

Limitation and future research

Influenced by some objective factors, this study also has some limitations. First of all, the bibliometrics analysis software has high standards for data. In order to ensure the quality and integrity of the collected data, the research only selects the periodical papers in SCIE and SSCI indexes, which are the core collection of Web of Science database, and excludes other databases, conference papers, editorials and other publications, which may ignore some scientific research and original opinions in the field of digital technology education and application research. In addition, although this study used professional software to carry out bibliometric analysis and obtained more objective quantitative data, the analysis and interpretation of data will inevitably have a certain subjective color, and the influence of subjectivity on data analysis cannot be completely avoided. As such, future research endeavors will broaden the scope of literature screening and proactively engage scholars in the field to gain objective and state-of-the-art insights, while minimizing the adverse impact of personal subjectivity on research analysis.

Data availability

The datasets analyzed during the current study are available in the Dataverse repository: https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/F9QMHY

Alabdulaziz MS (2021) COVID-19 and the use of digital technology in mathematics education. Educ Inf Technol 26(6):7609–7633. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10602-3

Arif TB, Munaf U, Ul-Haque I (2023) The future of medical education and research: is ChatGPT a blessing or blight in disguise? Med Educ Online 28. https://doi.org/10.1080/10872981.2023.2181052

Banerjee M, Chiew D, Patel KT, Johns I, Chappell D, Linton N, Cole GD, Francis DP, Szram J, Ross J, Zaman S (2021) The impact of artificial intelligence on clinical education: perceptions of postgraduate trainee doctors in London (UK) and recommendations for trainers. BMC Med Educ 21. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-021-02870-x

Barlovits S, Caldeira A, Fesakis G, Jablonski S, Koutsomanoli Filippaki D, Lázaro C, Ludwig M, Mammana MF, Moura A, Oehler DXK, Recio T, Taranto E, Volika S(2022) Adaptive, synchronous, and mobile online education: developing the ASYMPTOTE learning environment. Mathematics 10:1628. https://doi.org/10.3390/math10101628

Article Google Scholar

Baron NS(2021) Know what? How digital technologies undermine learning and remembering J Pragmat 175:27–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2021.01.011

Batista J, Morais NS, Ramos F (2016) Researching the use of communication technologies in higher education institutions in Portugal. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-0571-6.ch057

Beardsley M, Albó L, Aragón P, Hernández-Leo D (2021) Emergency education effects on teacher abilities and motivation to use digital technologies. Br J Educ Technol 52. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13101

Bennett S, Maton K(2010) Beyond the “digital natives” debate: towards a more nuanced understanding of students’ technology experiences J Comput Assist Learn 26:321–331. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2010.00360.x

Buckingham D, Burn A (2007) Game literacy in theory and practice 16:323–349

Google Scholar

Bulfin S, Pangrazio L, Selwyn N (2014) Making “MOOCs”: the construction of a new digital higher education within news media discourse. In: The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning 15. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v15i5.1856

Camilleri MA, Camilleri AC(2016) Digital learning resources and ubiquitous technologies in education Technol Knowl Learn 22:65–82. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-016-9287-7

Chen C(2006) CiteSpace II: detecting and visualizing emerging trends and transient patterns in scientific literature J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol 57:359–377. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20317

Chen J, Dai J, Zhu K, Xu L(2022) Effects of extended reality on language learning: a meta-analysis Front Psychol 13:1016519. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1016519

Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Chen J, Wang CL, Tang Y (2022b) Knowledge mapping of volunteer motivation: a bibliometric analysis and cross-cultural comparative study. Front Psychol 13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.883150

Cohen A, Soffer T, Henderson M(2022) Students’ use of technology and their perceptions of its usefulness in higher education: International comparison J Comput Assist Learn 38(5):1321–1331. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12678

Collins A, Halverson R(2010) The second educational revolution: rethinking education in the age of technology J Comput Assist Learn 26:18–27. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2009.00339.x

Conole G, Alevizou P (2010) A literature review of the use of Web 2.0 tools in higher education. Walton Hall, Milton Keynes, UK: the Open University, retrieved 17 February

Creely E, Henriksen D, Crawford R, Henderson M(2021) Exploring creative risk-taking and productive failure in classroom practice. A case study of the perceived self-efficacy and agency of teachers at one school Think Ski Creat 42:100951. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2021.100951

Davis N, Eickelmann B, Zaka P(2013) Restructuring of educational systems in the digital age from a co-evolutionary perspective J Comput Assist Learn 29:438–450. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12032

De Belli N (2009) Bibliometrics and citation analysis: from the science citation index to cybermetrics, Scarecrow Press. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12032

Domínguez A, Saenz-de-Navarrete J, de-Marcos L, Fernández-Sanz L, Pagés C, Martínez-Herráiz JJ(2013) Gamifying learning experiences: practical implications and outcomes Comput Educ 63:380–392. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.12.020

Donnison S (2009) Discourses in conflict: the relationship between Gen Y pre-service teachers, digital technologies and lifelong learning. Australasian J Educ Technol 25. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.1138

Durfee SM, Jain S, Shaffer K (2003) Incorporating electronic media into medical student education. Acad Radiol 10:205–210. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1076-6332(03)80046-6

Dzikowski P(2018) A bibliometric analysis of born global firms J Bus Res 85:281–294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.12.054

van Eck NJ, Waltman L(2009) Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping Scientometrics 84:523–538 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0146-3

Edwards S(2013) Digital play in the early years: a contextual response to the problem of integrating technologies and play-based pedagogies in the early childhood curriculum Eur Early Child Educ Res J 21:199–212. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350293x.2013.789190

Edwards S(2015) New concepts of play and the problem of technology, digital media and popular-culture integration with play-based learning in early childhood education Technol Pedagogy Educ 25:513–532 https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939x.2015.1108929

Article MathSciNet Google Scholar

Eisenberg MB(2008) Information literacy: essential skills for the information age DESIDOC J Libr Inf Technol 28:39–47. https://doi.org/10.14429/djlit.28.2.166

Forde C, OBrien A (2022) A literature review of barriers and opportunities presented by digitally enhanced practical skill teaching and learning in health science education. Med Educ Online 27. https://doi.org/10.1080/10872981.2022.2068210

García-Morales VJ, Garrido-Moreno A, Martín-Rojas R (2021) The transformation of higher education after the COVID disruption: emerging challenges in an online learning scenario. Front Psychol 12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.616059

Garfield E(2006) The history and meaning of the journal impact factor JAMA 295:90. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.295.1.90

Article PubMed Google Scholar

Garzón-Artacho E, Sola-Martínez T, Romero-Rodríguez JM, Gómez-García G(2021) Teachers’ perceptions of digital competence at the lifelong learning stage Heliyon 7:e07513. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e07513

Gaviria-Marin M, Merigó JM, Baier-Fuentes H(2019) Knowledge management: a global examination based on bibliometric analysis Technol Forecast Soc Change 140:194–220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.07.006

Gilster P, Glister P (1997) Digital literacy. Wiley Computer Pub, New York

Greenhow C, Lewin C(2015) Social media and education: reconceptualizing the boundaries of formal and informal learning Learn Media Technol 41:6–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2015.1064954

Hawkins DT(2001) Bibliometrics of electronic journals in information science Infor Res 7(1):7–1. http://informationr.net/ir/7-1/paper120.html

Henderson M, Selwyn N, Finger G, Aston R(2015) Students’ everyday engagement with digital technology in university: exploring patterns of use and “usefulness J High Educ Policy Manag 37:308–319 https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080x.2015.1034424

Huang CK, Neylon C, Hosking R, Montgomery L, Wilson KS, Ozaygen A, Brookes-Kenworthy C (2020) Evaluating the impact of open access policies on research institutions. eLife 9. https://doi.org/10.7554/elife.57067

Hwang GJ, Tsai CC(2011) Research trends in mobile and ubiquitous learning: a review of publications in selected journals from 2001 to 2010 Br J Educ Technol 42:E65–E70. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2011.01183.x

Hwang GJ, Wu PH, Zhuang YY, Huang YM(2013) Effects of the inquiry-based mobile learning model on the cognitive load and learning achievement of students Interact Learn Environ 21:338–354. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2011.575789

Jiang S, Ning CF (2022) Interactive communication in the process of physical education: are social media contributing to the improvement of physical training performance. Universal Access Inf Soc, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-022-00911-w

Jing Y, Zhao L, Zhu KK, Wang H, Wang CL, Xia Q(2023) Research landscape of adaptive learning in education: a bibliometric study on research publications from 2000 to 2022 Sustainability 15:3115–3115. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15043115

Jing Y, Wang CL, Chen Y, Wang H, Yu T, Shadiev R (2023b) Bibliometric mapping techniques in educational technology research: a systematic literature review. Educ Inf Technol 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-12178-6

Krishnamurthy S (2020) The future of business education: a commentary in the shadow of the Covid-19 pandemic. J Bus Res. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.05.034

Kumar S, Lim WM, Pandey N, Christopher Westland J (2021) 20 years of electronic commerce research. Electron Commer Res 21:1–40

Kyza EA, Georgiou Y(2018) Scaffolding augmented reality inquiry learning: the design and investigation of the TraceReaders location-based, augmented reality platform Interact Learn Environ 27:211–225. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2018.1458039

Laurillard D(2008) Technology enhanced learning as a tool for pedagogical innovation J Philos Educ 42:521–533. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9752.2008.00658.x

Li M, Yu Z (2023) A systematic review on the metaverse-based blended English learning. Front Psychol 13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1087508

Luo H, Li G, Feng Q, Yang Y, Zuo M (2021) Virtual reality in K-12 and higher education: a systematic review of the literature from 2000 to 2019. J Comput Assist Learn. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12538

Margaryan A, Littlejohn A, Vojt G(2011) Are digital natives a myth or reality? University students’ use of digital technologies Comput Educ 56:429–440. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.09.004

McMillan S(1996) Literacy and computer literacy: definitions and comparisons Comput Educ 27:161–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0360-1315(96)00026-7

Mo CY, Wang CL, Dai J, Jin P (2022) Video playback speed influence on learning effect from the perspective of personalized adaptive learning: a study based on cognitive load theory. Front Psychology 13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.839982

Moorhouse BL (2021) Beginning teaching during COVID-19: newly qualified Hong Kong teachers’ preparedness for online teaching. Educ Stud 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2021.1964939

Moorhouse BL, Wong KM (2021) The COVID-19 Pandemic as a catalyst for teacher pedagogical and technological innovation and development: teachers’ perspectives. Asia Pac J Educ 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2021.1988511

Moskal P, Dziuban C, Hartman J (2013) Blended learning: a dangerous idea? Internet High Educ 18:15–23

Mughal MY, Andleeb N, Khurram AFA, Ali MY, Aslam MS, Saleem MN (2022) Perceptions of teaching-learning force about Metaverse for education: a qualitative study. J. Positive School Psychol 6:1738–1745

Mustapha I, Thuy Van N, Shahverdi M, Qureshi MI, Khan N (2021) Effectiveness of digital technology in education during COVID-19 pandemic. a bibliometric analysis. Int J Interact Mob Technol 15:136

Nagle J (2018) Twitter, cyber-violence, and the need for a critical social media literacy in teacher education: a review of the literature. Teach Teach Education 76:86–94

Nazare J, Woolf A, Sysoev I, Ballinger S, Saveski M, Walker M, Roy D (2022) Technology-assisted coaching can increase engagement with learning technology at home and caregivers’ awareness of it. Comput Educ 188:104565

Nguyen UP, Hallinger P (2020) Assessing the distinctive contributions of simulation & gaming to the literature, 1970-2019: a bibliometric review. Simul Gaming 104687812094156. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878120941569

Nygren H, Nissinen K, Hämäläinen R, Wever B(2019) Lifelong learning: formal, non-formal and informal learning in the context of the use of problem-solving skills in technology-rich environments Br J Educ Technol 50:1759–1770. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12807

Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, Moher D (2021) The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Int J Surg 88:105906

Pan SL, Zhang S(2020) From fighting COVID-19 pandemic to tackling sustainable development goals: an opportunity for responsible information systems research Int J Inf Manage 55:102196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2020.102196

Pan X, Yan E, Cui M, Hua W(2018) Examining the usage, citation, and diffusion patterns of bibliometric mapping software: a comparative study of three tools J Informetr 12:481–493. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2018.03.005

Parris Z, Cale L, Harris J, Casey A (2022) Physical activity for health, covid-19 and social media: what, where and why?. Movimento, 28. https://doi.org/10.22456/1982-8918.122533

Pasquini LA, Evangelopoulos N (2016) Sociotechnical stewardship in higher education: a field study of social media policy documents. J Comput High Educ 29:218–239

Pérez-Sanagustín M, Hernández-Leo D, Santos P, Delgado Kloos C, Blat J(2014) Augmenting reality and formality of informal and non-formal settings to enhance blended learning IEEE Trans Learn Technol 7:118–131. https://doi.org/10.1109/TLT.2014.2312719

Pinto M, Leite C (2020) Digital technologies in support of students learning in Higher Education: literature review. Digital Education Review 343–360. https://doi.org/10.1344/der.2020.37.343-360

Pires F, Masanet MJ, Tomasena JM, Scolari CA(2022) Learning with YouTube: beyond formal and informal through new actors, strategies and affordances Convergence 28(3):838–853. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354856521102054

Pritchard A (1969) Statistical bibliography or bibliometrics 25:348

Romero M, Romeu T, Guitert M, Baztán P (2021) Digital transformation in higher education: the UOC case. In ICERI2021 Proceedings (pp. 6695–6703). IATED https://doi.org/10.21125/iceri.2021.1512

Romero-Hall E, Jaramillo Cherrez N (2022) Teaching in times of disruption: faculty digital literacy in higher education during the COVID-19 pandemic. Innovations in Education and Teaching International 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2022.2030782

Rospigliosi PA(2023) Artificial intelligence in teaching and learning: what questions should we ask of ChatGPT? Interactive Learning Environments 31:1–3. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2023.2180191

Salas-Pilco SZ, Yang Y, Zhang Z(2022) Student engagement in online learning in Latin American higher education during the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic review. Br J Educ Technol 53(3):593–619. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13190

Selwyn N(2009) The digital native-myth and reality In Aslib proceedings 61(4):364–379. https://doi.org/10.1108/00012530910973776

Selwyn N(2012) Making sense of young people, education and digital technology: the role of sociological theory Oxford Review of Education 38:81–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2011.577949

Selwyn N, Facer K(2014) The sociology of education and digital technology: past, present and future Oxford Rev Educ 40:482–496. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2014.933005

Selwyn N, Banaji S, Hadjithoma-Garstka C, Clark W(2011) Providing a platform for parents? Exploring the nature of parental engagement with school Learning Platforms J Comput Assist Learn 27:314–323. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2011.00428.x

Selwyn N, Aagaard J (2020) Banning mobile phones from classrooms-an opportunity to advance understandings of technology addiction, distraction and cyberbullying. Br J Educ Technol 52. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12943

Selwyn N, O’Neill C, Smith G, Andrejevic M, Gu X (2021) A necessary evil? The rise of online exam proctoring in Australian universities. Media Int Austr 1329878X2110058. https://doi.org/10.1177/1329878x211005862

Selwyn N, Pangrazio L, Nemorin S, Perrotta C (2019) What might the school of 2030 be like? An exercise in social science fiction. Learn, Media Technol 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2020.1694944

Selwyn, N (2016) What works and why?* Understanding successful technology enabled learning within institutional contexts 2016 Final report Appendices (Part B). Monash University Griffith University

Sjöberg D, Holmgren R (2021) Informal workplace learning in swedish police education-a teacher perspective. Vocations and Learning. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12186-021-09267-3

Strotmann A, Zhao D (2012) Author name disambiguation: what difference does it make in author-based citation analysis? J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol 63:1820–1833

Article CAS Google Scholar

Sutherland R, Facer K, Furlong R, Furlong J(2000) A new environment for education? The computer in the home. Comput Educ 34:195–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0360-1315(99)00045-7

Szeto E, Cheng AY-N, Hong J-C(2015) Learning with social media: how do preservice teachers integrate YouTube and Social Media in teaching? Asia-Pac Educ Res 25:35–44. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-015-0230-9

Tang E, Lam C(2014) Building an effective online learning community (OLC) in blog-based teaching portfolios Int High Educ 20:79–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2012.12.002

Taskin Z, Al U(2019) Natural language processing applications in library and information science Online Inf Rev 43:676–690. https://doi.org/10.1108/oir-07-2018-0217

Tegtmeyer K, Ibsen L, Goldstein B(2001) Computer-assisted learning in critical care: from ENIAC to HAL Crit Care Med 29:N177–N182. https://doi.org/10.1097/00003246-200108001-00006

Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

Timotheou S, Miliou O, Dimitriadis Y, Sobrino SV, Giannoutsou N, Cachia R, Moné AM, Ioannou A(2023) Impacts of digital technologies on education and factors influencing schools' digital capacity and transformation: a literature review. Educ Inf Technol 28(6):6695–6726. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11431-8

Trujillo Maza EM, Gómez Lozano MT, Cardozo Alarcón AC, Moreno Zuluaga L, Gamba Fadul M (2016) Blended learning supported by digital technology and competency-based medical education: a case study of the social medicine course at the Universidad de los Andes, Colombia. Int J Educ Technol High Educ 13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-016-0027-9

Turin O, Friesem Y(2020) Is that media literacy?: Israeli and US media scholars’ perceptions of the field J Media Lit Educ 12:132–144. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0146-3

Van Eck NJ, Waltman L (2019) VOSviewer manual. Universiteit Leiden

Vratulis V, Clarke T, Hoban G, Erickson G(2011) Additive and disruptive pedagogies: the use of slowmation as an example of digital technology implementation Teach Teach Educ 27:1179–1188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2011.06.004

Wang CL, Dai J, Xu LJ (2022) Big data and data mining in education: a bibliometrics study from 2010 to 2022. In 2022 7th International Conference on Cloud Computing and Big Data Analytics ( ICCCBDA ) (pp. 507-512). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/icccbda55098.2022.9778874

Wang CL, Dai J, Zhu KK, Yu T, Gu XQ (2023) Understanding the continuance intention of college students toward new E-learning spaces based on an integrated model of the TAM and TTF. Int J Hum-Comput Int 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2023.2291609

Wong L-H, Boticki I, Sun J, Looi C-K(2011) Improving the scaffolds of a mobile-assisted Chinese character forming game via a design-based research cycle Comput Hum Behav 27:1783–1793. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2011.03.005

Wu R, Yu Z (2023) Do AI chatbots improve students learning outcomes? Evidence from a meta-analysis. Br J Educ Technol. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13334

Yang D, Zhou J, Shi D, Pan Q, Wang D, Chen X, Liu J (2022) Research status, hotspots, and evolutionary trends of global digital education via knowledge graph analysis. Sustainability 14:15157–15157. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142215157

Yu T, Dai J, Wang CL (2023) Adoption of blended learning: Chinese university students’ perspectives. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 10:390. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142215157

Yu Z (2022) Sustaining student roles, digital literacy, learning achievements, and motivation in online learning environments during the COVID-19 pandemic. Sustainability 14:4388. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14084388

Za S, Spagnoletti P, North-Samardzic A(2014) Organisational learning as an emerging process: the generative role of digital tools in informal learning practices Br J Educ Technol 45:1023–1035. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12211

Zhang X, Chen Y, Hu L, Wang Y (2022) The metaverse in education: definition, framework, features, potential applications, challenges, and future research topics. Front Psychol 13:1016300. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1016300

Zhou M, Dzingirai C, Hove K, Chitata T, Mugandani R (2022) Adoption, use and enhancement of virtual learning during COVID-19. Education and Information Technologies. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-10985-x

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by the Zhejiang Provincial Social Science Planning Project, “Mechanisms and Pathways for Empowering Classroom Teaching through Learning Spaces under the Strategy of High-Quality Education Development”, the 2022 National Social Science Foundation Education Youth Project “Research on the Strategy of Creating Learning Space Value and Empowering Classroom Teaching under the background of ‘Double Reduction’” (Grant No. CCA220319) and the National College Student Innovation and Entrepreneurship Training Program of China (Grant No. 202310337023).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

College of Educational Science and Technology, Zhejiang University of Technology, Zhejiang, China

Chengliang Wang, Xiaojiao Chen, Yidan Liu & Yuhui Jing

Graduate School of Business, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Minden, Malaysia

Department of Management, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China

College of Humanities and Social Sciences, Beihang University, Beijing, China

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Conceptualization: Y.J., C.W.; methodology, C.W.; software, C.W., Y.L.; writing-original draft preparation, C.W., Y.L.; writing-review and editing, T.Y., Y.L., C.W.; supervision, X.C., T.Y.; project administration, Y.J.; funding acquisition, X.C., Y.L. All authors read and approved the final manuscript. All authors have read and approved the re-submission of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yuhui Jing .

Ethics declarations

Ethical approval.

Ethical approval was not required as the study did not involve human participants.

Informed consent

Informed consent was not required as the study did not involve human participants.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Wang, C., Chen, X., Yu, T. et al. Education reform and change driven by digital technology: a bibliometric study from a global perspective. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 11 , 256 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-02717-y

Download citation

Received : 11 July 2023

Accepted : 17 January 2024

Published : 12 February 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-02717-y

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

This article is cited by

A meta-analysis of learners’ continuance intention toward online education platforms.

Chengliang Wang

Education and Information Technologies (2024)

Quick links

Explore articles by subject
Guide to authors
Editorial policies

Sir Ken Robinson

Meet The Team
Video Gallery
Image Gallery
Speaking & Events

RSA Animate - Changing Education Paradigms

Last year I was honoured to be awarded the Benjamin Franklin Medal by the Royal Society of Arts in London. Accepting the Award I gave a talk on Changing Paradigms in Education. The RSA has produced a wonderful animated version of highlights of the talk. Here it is:

The full talk was about an hour and you can see it here .

Privacy Preference Center

Privacy preferences.

Harness the Power of Your Creativity

Inspired by sir ken robinson's vision—now it's your turn to forge your own path with our official membership.

Original Article
Open access
Published: 07 December 2016

Pedagogies of the futures: Shifting the educational paradigms

Jelena Cingel Bodinet 1

European Journal of Futures Research volume 4 , Article number: 21 ( 2016 ) Cite this article

12k Accesses

9 Citations

4 Altmetric

Metrics details

Focusing on an educational paradigm rooted in critical pedagogy, the socratic method, futures studies, and peace education, this essay takes the position that classrooms of the future should be transformed into safe harbors where students are afforded the opportunity to explore, deconstruct and share knowledge of themselves, their experiences, and the world in which they live. Drawing upon experience as a professor of futures studies, peace studies, and international relations, the author argues that, regardless of the subject being taught, students should be active participants in a classroom environment where the professor guides understanding primarily as an individual contributor. The essay embodies Einstein’s assertion that “we can not solve our problems with the same level of thinking that created them”, by arguing that in such ‘incubatorial’ classrooms, students and teachers strive, together, to evolve their mutual understanding of the world, which, as knowledge, forms a basis for their collective reality.

Education as the key

Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world. —Nelson Mandela

The present-day educational system was created during the industrial age [ 1 : 13] (1760–1860) and is largely geared toward the knowledge, values, and norms of the 18th and 19th centuries. Both society and the world in which we live have changed drastically since the industrial era and continue to change exponentially. Yet, changes within our educational system are proceeding at a much slower rate. Sir Ken Robins, an internationally celebrated leader in education and author of several books, argues that the current educational system runs on outdated needs and assumptions, producing an output of students ready to tackle the challenges of a former world [ 1 ]. To achieve this end, the present system first divides students into batches, and separates knowledge into segments [ 2 ]. It then becomes the instructor’s primary role to ‘transfer’ knowledge to the student, with the expectation that the student will memorize the information and reassemble it on cue. While at times valuable, this “banking” concept of education tends to create an atmosphere in which, according to Paulo Freire, “the people themselves (…) are filed away through the lack of creativity, transformation, and knowledge in this (at best) misguided system” [ 3 : 72].

Building on poststructuralism and social constructivism, as well as on Freire’s argument that “knowledge emerges only through invention and re-invention, through the restless, impatient continuing, hopeful inquiry human beings pursue in the world, with the world, and with each other” [ 3 : 72], this article argues for the creation of a future educational experience that will facilitate more than just the transfer of information. The classroom of the future, 2030 and beyond, should allow for the creation of a space in which students and educators can allow themselves to be present as human beings and, through this, come together in a holistic learning experience. Such classrooms offer students the opportunity to deconstruct and share knowledge of themselves, their experiences and the worlds in which they live. Focus is placed upon critical thinking and deep listening, with the intent of learning from the experiences of others. It should be a primary goal that graduates of such ‘incubatorial’ classrooms enter the “real” world with a better understanding of themselves, their abilities and desires, as well as a more profound understanding of their fellow humans and the world they inhabit. Through this, these graduates will be better equipped to handle the mounting challenges humanity presently faces. Global climate change, resource depletion, pollution, toxic waste, weapons of mass destruction, societal inequalities, and loss of biodiversity are among the issues the next few generations must tackle with urgency Footnote 1 [ 4 ]. In line with Einstein’s assertion that “we cannot solve our problems with the same level of thinking that created them”, if society is to start thinking differently, our educational systems must be structured so as to nurture different traits in society. If our aim is to engender positive change for the future, which is able to assist in the overcoming of the aforementioned challenges, a centuries-old educational system is most certainly barren soil.

The way forward

“The secret of change is to focus all your energy not into fighting the old but building of the new.” —Socrates

Education is a powerful tool that should be used to transform society into being more future-oriented, sustainable and peaceful. In an effort to create such a society, we must re-examine the foundations of education by posing several questions, including:

What is being taught (what subjects and how are they organized and presented)?

Who is being taught (who are the students and what are the educators’ perceptions of the student population)?

Who is doing the teaching (what is the educator’s background—e.g., gender, race, socio-economic status - especially as compared to or contrasted with the student population)? and

From whose perspective (educator and students should be aware of the subjectivity in any text or information provided)?

These questions help to gain clarity and assist in the necessary deconstruction of the pedagogical processes that are being utilized, in addition to allowing for a clearer articulation of our desired pedagogical processes for 2030 and beyond. How we answer the questions above will influence our teaching theories, methods, and tools.

Today, knowledge is generally segmented into four main disciplines: Humanities (e.g., Languages/Literature, History, Philosophy), Social Sciences (e.g., Anthropology, Sociology, Political Science), Natural Sciences (e.g., Biology, Chemistry, Physics) and Formal Sciences (e.g., Mathematics, Logic). This system allows for the organization of knowledge and, through this organization, provides a sense of control over the overwhelming amount of information that humans currently possess. In such a system, individuals are able to specialize in a certain discipline and become experts in it, presiding over a large amount of knowledge in one particular field. This can be very beneficial in many cases, but at times such “categorizations” may prevent us from being able to have a more holistic point of view.

Various new fields of inquiry are questioning this organized structure through the use of multidisciplinary Footnote 2 and interdisciplinary Footnote 3 approaches. Contemporary disciplines such as Futures Studies, Peace Studies, and Gender Studies draw upon concepts stemming from various existing and established disciplines (e.g. anthropology, history, psychology, political science, sociology, economics, philosophy) to gain a fresh perspective on existing problems, as well as to address the problems using truly innovative solutions. Such programs are becoming popular with students and, thus, their availability is increasing at institutions of higher education around the world. However, one impediment to a more rapid adoption of such interdisciplinary subjects is that these subjects often face various roadblocks in the bureaucracies of academia where deans and chairs are unsure of how to categorize the new subject and hire appropriate professors. This lack of institutional support could threaten the existence of these innovative courses, despite their popularity with the student population. If we are to allow for a paradigm shift in the organization of knowledge, a new understanding at the leadership level is necessary; this is not surprising, as present leadership is a product of the self-same system, thus perpetuated.

The UNESCO report on Futures of Learning argues that this effort to change must be multi-national, “will require professional, organizational and political action” and “must take place not just inside classrooms, schools and central management, but also outside—in the culture, systems, policies and structures that shape and support what happens in the classroom” [ 4 : 16]. One way to support such a paradigm shift, then, is to lobby in favor of interdisciplinary programs at various educational institutions as well as to continue to teach such courses using innovative approaches. All the while, we must continue to be aware of the kind of population we are serving as educators, as it becomes a crucial aspect of our ability to offer appropriate courses that are taught in a way that resonates with that particular student population. As experienced educators, we need to be willing to get to know our students and understand who they are, beyond the usual statistics such as gender, race, age, socio-economic status, etc.

“Freire argued that teachers uncover materials and generative themes based on their emerging knowledge of students and their sociocultural backgrounds. eachers come to understand the ways students perceive themselves and their interrelationships with other people and their social reality. This information is essential to the critical pedagogical act as it helps teachers understand the ways they make sense of schooling and their lived words. With these understandings in mind, critical teachers come to know what and how students make meaning. This enables teachers to construct pedagogies that engage the impassioned spirit of students in ways that moves them to learn what they don’t know and to identify what they want to know”

[ 6 : 19-20].

Thus, we need to allow our students to, first, educate us, the educators, on their backgrounds, lives and beliefs so that we are better able to understand how we can help these individuals learn what we, as a society, wish them to know. Through this, we are able to assist them in reaching their highest potential. Using this process we might also gain insight into the various teaching methods that have an increased effect on each particular student population.

“Oh Captain, my Captain”

“Just when you think you know something, you have to look at in another way. Even though it may seem silly or wrong, you must try.” —Robin Williams (as John Keating in Dead Poets Society)

When I first started teaching at San Diego City College in 2008, an institution where I have taught Futures Studies, Peace Studies, International Relations, Comparative Politics and Gender Studies, I lectured the entirety of most class meetings. I was experienced as a teacher, but this was my first time teaching at the college level. As such, I started by imitating the kind of teaching style that I had experienced most of my life; the teacher-centered approach. At this time in my career this made sense; I could use the text-books that were recommended by my colleagues and create PowerPoint presentations that could easily be re-used each semester. I was meeting the standards of teaching with which I was familiar. This approach worked for a while, but I felt very distant from my students and thought that I was not being as effective as I could be. I believed that a discussion covering the PowerPoint presentations would benefit the class, yet the students were not very interested in joining the discussion, nor were they interested in asking their own questions. While some of the students were content with, effectively, the status quo, there were a few individuals who were bold enough to question my methods, my teaching style and the content I was covering. In my Comparative Politics courses, students wondered how and why we spent so much time studying the state structure of the United Kingdom and were not covering contemporary issues, such as immigration and terrorism, in more detail. In my International Relations courses, they questioned why we spent so much time on Liberalism and Realism, and not as much on other approaches such as Constructivism, Poststructuralism, Marxism, Postcolonialism, Feminism, etc.

Where other professors might become defensive and double down on their style, I chose to listen deeply and learn from what I saw to be a very diverse and intelligent student body. I heard and understood that this population was feeling left out from the wider discourse of higher education, as they could not picture themselves in any part of it. Realism and Liberalism are rooted in Western thought and remain dominated by mostly male individuals of European heritage and higher social ranking. These theories were addressing problems that seemed irrelevant to my students, through a language that was foreign to them. Yet, areas of study such as Postcolonialism and Feminism are spaces that allow such students to identify with both the message and the messenger. Many of the texts in the forementioned subjects were written by the oppressed or subaltern, and are addressed, in part, to that very same group. In many cases, students in my classes (and I think young people in general can fall into this group) feel oppressed or ‘othered’ in their personal lives, and, so, reading postcolonial or feminist texts addresses a part of them that might not have been addressed through previous (formal) educational experience. As a consequence of me listening and shifting my focus, the students suddenly engaged in the subject matter much more richly; they were interested in the readings, which now gave them a sense of validation (of both language and content), and through this they began to contribute more significantly in class. Here is where true learning begins to take place—where students are able to see themselves as part of their newly acquired knowledge and can begin to recognize that they, in fact, also play a part in this bigger puzzle that they are just starting to understand [ 4 : 6]. Such learning allows students to gain a better understanding of themselves and the world in which they live, creating a space for much more aware and active social participants.

Beyond a pivot in the subject matter of readings, I also began to realize that a “‘transmission’ model is highly ineffective for teaching twenty-first century skills” [ 4 : 2]. The various theories and methodological approaches I was teaching questioned many of the structures and “social inventions” Footnote 4 that make up and control our world, including teacher-centered pedagogical approaches. Specifically, it was poststructuralism, a theory highly concerned with power structures and the idea of hegemony, that equipped me with a theoretical basis for re-examining the lecture-based pedagogical model as the appropriate tool for teaching. As we read and discussed ideas concerning cycles of oppression, social inequalities, reproduction of social structures, and others, I became conscious of the fact that the lecture-based pedagogical approach I was utilizing was, in fact, both a by-product of oppressive social structures as well as a system that was allowing such structures to perpetuate. As Michel Foucault, the prominent French philosopher, noted:

“Education may well be, as of right, the instrument whereby every individual, in a society like our own, can gain access to any kind of discourse. But we well know that in its distribution, in what it permits and in what it prevents, it follows the well-trodden battle-lines of social conflict. Every education system is a political means of maintaining or of modifying the appropriation of discourse, with the knowledge and the powers it carries with it.” [ 8 : 227]

Bearing this in mind, it follows that education has a prominent role to play in the construction of systems of power; privilege and oppression; and the general discourse of our social realities. Teaching approaches are the starting point of such social construction, similar to how a font affects more meaning or emotion in the written word, and so the approach should reflect the kind of world that we hope to create.

Social constructivism is another theoretical approach which impacted my classroom structure. This theory emphasizes the idea “that human development is socially situated and knowledge is constructed through interaction with others” [ 9 : 1] and holds that “humans create meaning as opposed to acquiring it” [ 10 : 55]. Thus, our ability to learn becomes closely connected to our involvement in the learning process. “For this reason, it is critical that learning occurs in realistic settings and that the selected learning tasks be relevant to the students’ lived experiences” [ 10 : 56]. Following this constructivist point of view, we move away from the model of thinking that knowledge is objective, and begin to understand that knowledge is linked to the historical context of the material being studied, as well as the students’ lived experiences. Once these are taken into consideration, a new learning structure emerges, one that encourages the learner to “construct their own understandings and then to validate, through social negotiation, these new perspectives” [ 10 : 57-58]. Understanding that development and acquisition of knowledge is directly related to social interaction, lived experience and historical context caused me to create student-centered classrooms which would allow and assist students to learn on their own and in groups.

Various researchers have published studies to support such student-centered approaches, as was beautifully summarized in Cynthia Luna Scott’s “Futures of Learning 3: What kind of Pedagogies for the 21st Century?” Multiple research studies are quoted therein, which substantiate the idea that “pedagogies that support deeper learning include personalized learning strategies, collaborative learning and informal learning” [ 4 : 2]. Furthermore, Scott asserts that:

“[t]here is compelling evidence that enquiry based collaborative approaches to learning benefit both individual and collective knowledge growth. Learners engaged in enquiry-based learning develop content knowledge and learn increasingly important twenty-first century skills, such as the ability to work in teams, solve complex problems, and apply knowledge gained through one lesson or task to other circumstances (Barron and Darling-Hammond, 2008, p. 12) (…) Leadbeater (2008) stresses that ‘learning is best done with people rather than to or for them. It is more effective when learners are participants rather than merely recipients’. Deeper learning is supported by ‘doing and using’ and students are motivated through highly participative and dynamic learning activities. Emphasis is placed on the process of teaching and learning, with effective learning organized to create maximum opportunities for learners and teachers to talk, meet, ask questions, share information and exchange ideas. Learners are more engaged in learning and can tackle bigger, more sophisticated projects when they collaborate with others both inside school (Vockley and P21, 2007) and within and between communities (Carneiro, 2007). Ultimately, there are few places and situations in the current workplace where people truly work alone. The ability to collaborate and communicate is therefore essential.” [ 4 : 6-7]

Of a similar mindset, I chose to incorporate student-centered teaching methods, such as structured discussions, small group work (e.g. groups projects or group presentations), and workshops, while cutting back on lectures and teacher-centered teaching methods. Through this new structure, students were able to learn from each other and work together in new ways. As a result of my shift toward more student-centered teaching methods I could perceive (in some classes more so than others, due to the differences in personalities that make up each group) a sense of community arising in my classrooms. Students started to engage each other in a different way, becoming friends, and creating a sense of togetherness in the classroom, which, in turn, created a very positive and supportive learning environment, because

“(…)individuals learn best when they are supported by the right set of relationships that motivate, engage, care about and reward them… Such relationships offer them opportunities to actively participate in learning and co-create new knowledge.” [ 4 : 10]

Over time, I have incorporated several methods into my teaching repertoire, most of which have proven to be very appropriate and successful with the student population at San Diego City College. It is such student-centered teaching methods, which, I argue, should become a necessary part of classrooms of 2030 and beyond. The remainder of this article is dedicated to the following active learning methods I employ today, and strongly urge other educators to adopt in the future: meditation, visioning workshops, various types of discussions and small group work, and (shortened) active teacher and guest lectures.

Meditation as a teaching tool

“If every eight year old in the world is taught meditation, we will eliminate violence from the world within one generation.” —The Dalai Lama

Both long-term practice in various cultures and modern scientific research have shown that meditation is an excellent tool that helps individuals reduce stress, clear the mind and allow for better concentration, among other benefits. For centuries, various groups (Buddhists, Hindus, etc.) have used meditation due to its lasting impacts on the body and mind, including a calming and transformational effect that improves health and emotional positivity [ 11 ]. Furthermore, studies have more recently found that meditation can be used as a positive tool in educational settings. In their paper “Integrating Mindfulness Training into K-12 Education: Fostering the Resilience of Teachers and Students”, John Meiklejohn et al. argue that:

“Research on the neurobiology of mindfulness in adults suggests that sustained mindfulness practice can enhance attentional and emotional self-regulation and promote flexibility, pointing toward significant potential benefits for both teachers and students (…) Since 2005, 14 studies of programs that directly train students in mindfulness have collectively demonstrated a range of cognitive, social, and psychological benefits to both elementary (six studies) and high school (eight studies) students. These include improvements in working memory, attention, academic skills, social skills, emotional regulation, and self-esteem, as well as self-reported improvements in mood and decreases in anxiety, stress, and fatigue.” [ 12 ]

Various additional studies in schools across the United States have shown that meditation has been instrumental in both academic performance, by helping students to improve scores on validated attention-skills tests [ 13 ] and in resulting in 38% fewer suspension days, 25% fewer class absences, 50% fewer rule infractions, and 8% reduction of aggressive behavior [ 14 ].

Based upon the aforementioned ancient traditions, whose effects are substantiated by recent scientific studies, I decided to introduce a five-minute mindfulness meditation to the beginning of most courses that I teach at San Diego City College. This is a practice that is democratically voted upon at the beginning of each semester, thus it is something that the students, themselves, ultimately have to choose to incorporate into their day. When included, this time allows the group to come together and “arrive” in the classroom space and become more present and aware of their surroundings. The students find this time to be extremely valuable, as it’s “the only time in the day I get to just have some peace and just be”. Footnote 5

In an effort to support various types of individuals, students are offered two different options at the beginning of each session. For the meditation beginner, it is important to have options to work with, as they should not be discouraged from continuing the practice when they do not feel comfortable with one way or another. One option that can be given is to simply focus on the breath; as thoughts come up, label them as thoughts and allow them to dissipate, but not to engage with the thoughts at the moment. With the other option, students are encouraged to pay very close attention to what is occurring inside of themselves and to become aware of their bodies, their thoughts and their feelings, noting things that they might have missed or things that need attention. Students are reminded to withhold judgement during meditation, regardless of the thoughts and feelings that might arise. At times, we may try a different meditation approach, such as a recorded guided meditation by another person or by focusing on a specific issue that we are working on at the time.

Thus, mindfulness practices not only offer the student assistance when learning academic material, but also create space for the student to become more familiar with the self, beyond textbook knowledge.

The visioning workshop

For a more thorough explanation of the visioning workshops, please see: Jelena Bodinet’s “Futures of Hope” (2016) [ 15 ].

“A vision is not just a picture of what could be; it is an appeal to our better selves, a call to become something more.” — Rosabeth Moss Kanter

Originally developed by the European futurist and co-founder of the World Futures Studies Federation, Robert Jungk, the visioning workshop is a tool that has been used in various settings for the past seventy years. Jungk, a Holocaust survivor, developed the workshop as a tool that would help individuals and organizations become aware of their own agency in the creation of their personal and communal futures, thus offering them a way to become aware of the way their actions in the present affect their futures. These workshops, Jungk hoped, would allow more people to become mindful of their abilities in the creation of desirable futures. The workshops were further popularized in the United States by Elise Boulding and Warren Ziegler, who created the ‘Imaging a World Without Weapons Project’ and focused their workshops on helping “communities envision futures in which their most pressing problems were solved, to envisioning a world without weapons”. Footnote 7

The visioning workshops are generally made up of four steps:

“Preparation phase”: organization and goals of the workshop are explained to the participants.

“Critique phase”: the participants are asked to identify and investigate the main problem that they wish to focus on, seeking to analyze it thoroughly and understand various aspects of it.

“Fantasy phase”: during this phase the very crucial work of creating preferred futures images occurs.

“Implementation phase”: participants are asked to write up a detailed plan for action in the immediate and distant future that will assist them to achieve their preferred imagined futures.

While Jungk utilized several days to complete his visioning workshops and could use more time for the preparation phase, many professors are unable to use as much time for this kind of workshop. In my case, I am only able to set aside two, ninety-minute sessions for this workshop near the end of the semester. In an effort to prepare the students for the workshop using minimal class time, I have developed a set of questions that are used as a reflection paper prompt for the students to complete prior to the start of the workshop. This reflection paper allows students to prepare for the visioning workshop on their own time so that class time could be maximized to focus on other important aspects of the visioning work. The following set of questions are used as the reflection prompt and are based on various works and interviews with the brilliant futurist Sohail Inayatullah:

What are the things you say to yourself over and over about the state of war and peace in the world?

Where do these ideas come from? Reflect deeply on your thoughts above.

Are the ideas you hold about the state of war and peace in the world useful to you?

Can you create a new story of how you want the world to be/look? What is your vision of a peaceful world? Please be as detailed as possible and try to write from the envisioned future [ 15 ]. Footnote 8

San Diego City College students seem to be extremely interested in the visioning workshop, but especially so after they have completed the reflection paper and have taken the time to truly think about their futures in a more structured way, the origins of their futures images, and the influences that these images have on their lives. As many futures writers have argued [ 17 , 18 ], our society suffers from a lack of positive futures images; that is, it has become increasingly difficult for most of us to construct clear, positive and constructive images of our personal and communal futures. We are bombarded with other people’s visions of the futures; from books, movies, sitcoms, video games, commercials, etc. and, unfortunately, these are often very much dystopian futures - one needs just to peruse the most popular Hollywood movies to come to this realization. Many people, especially those who are younger and impressionable, tend to subconsciously adopt these futures images as their own. San Diego City College students have expressed such ‘adopted’ futures images numerous times in their personal and communal futures essays, where they are asked to describe their visions of futures thirty years hence. Overwhelmingly, the futures are tech-heavy and at times refer back to a specific source, such as ‘The Jetsons’ or ‘Terminator’. Once immersed in the visioning workshop, the students begin to wake up to the influence that these ‘borrowed’ futures have had on their own ideas about the futures. This recognition is tied to their abilities to engage in the creation of more original and innovative preferred futures images. In “Futures of Hope” I write:

“Building on the work of Fred Polak, who argued that a lack of positive guiding futures images can lead to a loss of direction and purpose in a society [ 18 ], and that of Boulding, who asserted that we cannot create a future we cannot imagine [ 17 ], I further propose that the responsibility of the field of futures studies is to create a space in which students can readily engage in the exercise of creating new, creative and preferred images of our global futures…. These safe spaces, in which the exploration of positive futures images can take place, can be used as a tool to help empower participants to believe in their agency in the creation of positive changes in their personal and communal futures.” [ 15 ]

Undoubtedly, the visioning workshop is a tool that can be used to help individuals further understand their role in the creation of their futures. Once individuals become conscious of their agency in the creation of our personal and common futures, they become more aware of how their decisions in the present may effect the outcomes of their short term and long term futures.

“I cannot teach anybody anything, I can only make them think.” —Socrates

Discussions have been used as a teaching tool for centuries, with the Socratic Method, arguably, as one of the most prominent and well known in the Western world. There are various ways that discussions can be utilized in a classroom environment and assist students in acquiring knowledge, while also allowing them to learn to think critically and engage with others in a positive and constructive manner. Discussions are an important part of the classroom environment as they offer a space for the group to come together to share and create knowledge and to ask questions, with no one person having all of the answers. It is also during discussion where the group is able to get to know each other and to learn about each other’s personalities, ideas, and thoughts. Over time, the discussions become deeper and more meaningful as they are layered with previous knowledge.

Furthermore, as bell hooks [sic], a prominent educator, feminist and social critic, notes in one of her books: “To engage in dialogue is one of the simplest ways we can begin as teachers, scholars, and critical thinkers to cross boundaries” [ 19 : 130]. hooks is very right in this analysis as the time spent in discussion can assist the professor in the acquisition of new knowledge so as to gain further understanding of the world through the students’ experience and analysis. This is the magic of education; if one is able to create a space in which all participants are learning, including the professor, then the space for transformation has been created. Indisputably, letting go of the structure of lecture, and the feeling of power it holds, can be intimidating and daunting for some educators. For most of our lives we have been exposed to the, aforementioned, ‘banking’ model of education where the educator is in possession of knowledge that is bestowed upon the students through the very organized structure of lecture. In many classrooms, this is still the only structure of learning and, while useful some of the time, lecture can be beautifully interchanged with various structured discussions. Keeping in mind the various contemporary research studies that support the idea that collaborative learning is in fact far more beneficial than the lecture-based model [ 4 ] should encourage more educators to adopt such practices in their classrooms and workshops. It is fitting to here enumerate examples of a few discussion formats which have yielded the most favorable results thus far in my courses, including: concentric circles, Socratic inquiry, world cafe, small group discussions, and large circle discussion.

Concentric circles

Towards the beginning of each semester, I invite colleagues from the local chapter of the ‘Alternatives to Violence Project’, Footnote 9 a volunteer-run conflict transformation program, to visit my class for a ninety-minute workshop. This experiential, community-building workshop allows students to practice both listening and speaking as integral to dialogue, become exposed to non-violent communication tactics, Footnote 10 and learn about alternative conflict transformation strategies. Footnote 11

An integral part of this workshop is concentric circles. First, the class is divided into two groups; one facing in, the other facing out, with each student finding a partner. After the students have had a chance to introduce themselves, the session begins. A facilitator explains the rules and is present to time the session and lead the group through the exercise. The facilitator asks a question that students in either the inner or outer circle are requested to answer, while students in the opposite circle are expected to only listen for a certain amount of time (generally, two to five minutes). Once the facilitator gives a signal, the student roles switch, with the listener becoming the speaker and vice versa. Students in the role of the listener are asked to take the time to listen deeply to their partners, without any kind of verbal response. In the beginning of the exercise, many students have a difficult time with being quiet and just listening without any verbal responses and may need to be reminded of this rule.

After both partners have answered the question, the inner or outer circle is asked to stand up and move one chair to the left or right, until each participant has a new partner. Depending on the goal of the concentric circle, the questions can be chosen by the facilitator to suit the topic at hand. Generally, the exercise starts with more casual questions to allow students time to become comfortable with the process, but with each rotation, deeper questions are asked. In my courses, this exercise is often used as a group-building exercise. Here are some prompts that are given:

“A movie or book that I love and why.”

“A person I truly admire and why.”

“Something I’ve learned in my life that has been important to me.”

“A way I have of expressing anger without hurting myself or others.”

“A time I felt most hurt by someone I trusted.”

“One thing I have done I am most proud of.”

Socratic inquiry

While there are various ways that Socratic inquiry can be used and adopted in a classroom setting, Footnote 12 the main point of using this tool is to help students learn to think critically. In my classroom, I utilize the Socratic inquiry method in the form of circles. Students are given a set of readings to be completed prior to class, along with one or more open-ended, critical thinking questions or prompts. At times, students are also asked to complete a reflection paper, based on the questions/prompt assigned by the professor, prior to the Socratic circle. The students are briefed on the fact that the professor will not actively participate in the discussion, but will offer minimal assistance, if required. Thus, students are put in a situation where they are obliged to talk among themselves, without the ‘towering’ figure of the professor.

In preparation for the discussion, chairs are arranged into an inner circle and an outer circle, both facing inward. During the discussion, only students in the inner circle are allowed to speak and participate, while the students in the outer circle only observe and take notes. After some time, their roles switch and the students in the inner circle move to the outer circle and vice versa. At this time, the professor may give the second circle a slightly different prompt or allow them to build off of the conversation of the first group. Footnote 13

Small group work

In a class of several dozens of students, it can be difficult to engage everyone in the conversation. Small group work can be used as a way to ensure that even the shyest students are able to participate actively and have their voice heard. Here are a few ideas on incorporating small group work in the class:

Small groups can be utilized as a warm up at the beginning of class. For instance, students can be asked to briefly go over the readings for that day or share insights from their homework.

Think-Pair-Share: Students are asked to think about a question posed by the instructor and then discuss it with one or two partners. Students could also be asked to write down their thoughts prior to conversing with a partner. After some time (five or so minutes), students are encouraged to share their thoughts with the rest of the class. This activity may also be helpful during lectures; the lecturer may ask questions and put students in pairs to become more actively involved in the material.

Expert groups: Students are put in small groups of no more than four students and given twenty to thirty minutes to become “experts” on a certain topic or part of the reading assigned for that day. These experts are then expected to share their expertise with the rest of the class.

Long-term small group work: students find partners and choose a relevant topic as the focus of a common research question over several weeks. Every student is responsible for one aspect of the research, and is expected to turn in their own research paper independently. The students give a group presentation to share their newfound knowledge.

“Gallery Walk: Stations or posters are set up around the classroom, on the walls or on tables. Small groups of students travel from station to station together, performing some kind of task or responding to a prompt, either of which will result in a conversation” [ 23 ].

The world cafe method

The World Cafe is yet another method that allows for a structured conversation to take place among students, with minimal input from the instructor. The process is briefly outlined on The World Cafe website:

Setting: Create a “special” environment, most often modeled after a café, i.e. small round tables covered with a checkered or white linen tablecloth, butcher block paper, colored pens, a vase of flowers, and optional “talking stick” item. There should be four chairs at each table (optimally)—and no more than five.

Welcome and Introduction: The host begins with a warm welcome and an introduction to the World Café process, setting the context, sharing the Cafe Etiquette, and putting participants at ease.

Small Group Rounds: The process begins with the first of three or more twenty minute rounds of conversation for the small group seated around a table. At the end of the twenty minutes, each member of the group moves to a different new table. They may or may not choose to leave one person as the “table host” for the next round, who welcomes the next group and briefly fills them in on what happened in the previous round.

Questions: each round is prefaced with a question specially crafted for the specific context and desired purpose of the World Café. The same questions can be used for more than one round, or they can be built upon each other to focus the conversation or guide its direction.

Harvest: After the small groups (and/or in between rounds, as needed), individuals are invited to share insights or other results from their conversations with the rest of the large group. These results are reflected visually in a variety of ways, most often using graphic recording in the front of the room. Footnote 14

This kind of a discussion may be used at any point during the semester for various purposes. At times, it may be used as a way to harvest information (i.e. what the students want to focus on and learn further about) or a way to deeply explore an issue (i.e. how can California address the current drought?).

Large circle discussions

While much of the work occurs in various workshops and small groups, large group discussions serve a very important purpose in the classroom. It is during this time that the whole group comes together and may share their thoughts, experiences and questions. As the discussion facilitator, the professor is responsible for the creation of an atmosphere in which most students will feel comfortable enough to participate in the discussion and share various perspectives.

When properly structured and well organized, large circle discussions become some of the most fruitful processes in my classroom, as they assist the group to accomplish several goals: the group can become well acquainted, thus creating a strong learning community; students become active learners and contribute to the creation of knowledge in the classroom; critical and creative thinking takes place; students take on more power in their own learning and may gear the discussion in the direction that is most useful to them and more. Additionally, time spent in discussion offers a different kind of classroom experience for the educator as well. The educator has to give up some of the power that traditionally comes with the structure of lecture, however, the educator assists in the creation of a space in which she becomes a student and can allow herself to learn, grow and understand the experience of the “other”—the student. This kind of teaching, then, also does something profound for the educator; it frees her to learn from the process and, thus, it contributes to her growth as a person and educator.

Teacher and guest lectures

“Oh, that Einstein, always cutting lectures… I really would not believe him capable of it.” -Hermann Minkowski

Lecturing may be one of the oldest teaching methods and is, as previously mentioned, the method mostly utilized in contemporary higher education. Having originated during a time when printed material was not readily available and only a select few had the ability to read and write, lectures were a very useful, if not the only, way to share information with large groups of people. Prior to the invention of the printing press in the mid 1400s, written material was prized highly due to the human-labor-costs associated with each copy, making it a luxury only available to the higher socio-economic groups. During this time, lectures were utilized as a way to transfer knowledge found in written material. The lecturer would often read the printed text to a room full of students copying down as much as they could for their own purposes. The noun “lecture” itself stems from the Latin word lectus , pp. of legere meaning “to read”. Footnote 15

Over time, lectures have evolved to accommodate ever-changing societies and norms. Today, most lecturers utilize audio-visual aids and deliver lectures that are animated and engaging, rather than dully read from pre-written notes. Contemporary research shows that most people learn better by being actively involved in the process, consequently many educators are seeking to utilize more active lecturing styles [ 4 ]. Mini lectures, of about fifteen to twenty minutes, may be a great tool to introduce a new topic and cover the most important part of the learning material. At times, several mini lectures can be incorporated into a full class meeting, but attention should be given to ensure that time for active learning is also included. Once the nuts and bolts have been covered through lectures, the class should shift to a different format in an effort to engage even the sleepiest individuals in the back row and allow students to question, probe and re-examine the newly presented information.

As was previously mentioned, there are several ways educators may make their lectures more active. Here are a few specific examples:

Build in various points in the lecture where students are given the option to ask questions, go back to a specific point and re-examine it, review their notes, compare notes with another student, and/or identify the key points made.

Pause for short group work at different points in the lecture, asking students to answer a critical thinking question based upon the lecture material (see ‘think-pair-share’ above).

One-minute paper: Give students one (or a few) minute(s) to respond to a writing prompt such as: What was the most important concept in the lecture today? What was the most confusing part of the material? The lecturer may collect these papers to gain clarification on the effectiveness of the lecture.

In addition to creating lectures that are more active and participatory, another interesting way to engage and inform students is through guests in the classroom. Guests can fill various roles, in addition to getting students excited about the discipline. Over the years, I have had various guests in my classes, ranging from academic experts in the field, experts in the workplace or individuals who have strong personal stories to share - for example: a sustainability professor to cover the environmental issues we are faced with today and may expect in the future, representatives from such organizations/companies as Institute for the Future (IFTF) to discuss skills necessary to become a professional futurist, and a Holocaust survivor to emphasize some important historical contexts (a very popular visitor in my peace studies classes). At times, it may be difficult for the guest speaker to visit in person, consequently, they may be invited to participate via audio-visual means.

Guest speakers have allowed my students to experience aspects of a field or discipline that I was unable to show or communicate to them personally. This not only has made students more excited about learning, but it has also allowed them to visualize ways that they may be able to move forward with their chosen career. It may be especially difficult for first year undergraduate students to visualize a true professional path in an interdisciplinary subject such as futures studies, but guest speakers can act as real-life examples of existing possibilities.

The pedagogical path to 2030 and beyond

“No one is born fully-formed: it is through self-experience in the world that we become what we are.” ― Paulo Freire

The various pedagogical approaches outlined above are ways in which our traditional, lecture-based classrooms can be transformed into spaces that allow students to attain more than intellectual growth; such should be the classrooms of 2030 and beyond. “Real-world challenges are highly complex, often ill-defined and interdisciplinary in nature, spanning multiple domains (social, economic, political, environmental, legal and ethical). Learners must have opportunities to reflect on their ideas, hone their analytical skills, strengthen their critical and creative thinking capacities, and demonstrate initiative. In particular, the ability to evaluate new inputs and perspectives, build new capacities and strengthen autonomy will be crucial” [ 4 : 15].

It is such student-centered, engaging and cooperative classrooms where students can learn to interact with their peers on a more profound level and consequently gain a new understanding of the world, which they share with others. Each of our experiences in the present differs profoundly from others’ experience and it is through the sharing of these experiences that we give each other a chance to understand the various presents happening at this time. As we become aware of and begin to understand the various presents that are taking place simultaneously, we may become more conscious of the many futures that are ours to create. The classrooms of the future must allow for such a deep understanding of the ‘other’ as well as each person’s agency in the creation of our futures, as it is only through understanding that we can enact true, meaningful and lasting change. As mentioned above, the challenges that the next generations face, are paramount; and thus the changes in our attitudes, cultures and societies must be sweeping. Educational overhaul can and should play a crucial role in such a transformation.

This point is similarly argued in Cynthia Luna Scott’s 2015 article, The Futures of Learning 3 , “Saavedra and Opfer (2012) argue that learners must hone their skills and enhance their learning as a matter of urgency to be able to address persistent global challenges” [ 4 ].

Multidisciplinarity is the study of several disciplines simultaneously. “Multidisciplinarity brings a plus to the discipline in question (the history of art or philosophy in our examples), but this ‘plus’ is always in the exclusive service of the home discipline. In other words, the multidisciplinary approach overflows disciplinary boundaries while its goal remains limited to the framework of disciplinary research.” As quoted in [ 5 ].

An interdisciplinary program synthesizes perspectives, knowledge, and skills from various established disciplines to examine a central theme or issue. For instance, peace studies draws heavily from various disciplines (political science, history, sociology, etc.), yet remains separate from them and seeks to better understand how we can create a more peaceful world.

In the essay “Society as a social invention and you as a social inventor” (1993) by Dr. Jim Dator, Professor and Director of the Hawaii Research Center for Futures Studies at the University of Hawaii, Manoa, posits that everything around us is a social invention. The term “social invention” is borrowed from this essay [ 7 ].

Anonymous student in Peace Studies 101 class, San Diego City College, Spring 2016.

Elise Boulding, quoted in [ 16 ].

The questions above focus on the creation of a peaceful world, as that is a large part of the Peace Studies and Futures Studies courses I teach, but they could easily be changed to fit a different paradigm or course requirement.

For more information about AVP, see: http://www.avpcalifornia.org/whatisavp/index.php and http://avpusa.org/ .

For more information, see Marshall Rosenberg’s “Nonviolent Communication” (2015) [ 20 ].

For more information, see John Lederach’s “The Little Book of Conflict Transformation“(2003) [ 21 ].

For a thorough discussion of the Socratic method and its possible uses, see Matt Copeland’s Socratic Circles (2005) [ 22 ].

The Socratic circle approach as described here was introduced to me by another Peace Studies professor and colleague, Katie Zanoni. In addition to showing me the process she used in her class, Katie also shared with me an evaluation handout which the students in the outer circle would be asked to fill out while observing the discussion taking place in the inner circle. Each student in the outer circle is put in charge of carefully observing one student in the inner circle, filling out the evaluation handout, and giving their partner feedback and tips for further development.

The World Cafe Method, see http://www.theworldcafe.com/key-concepts-resources/world-cafe-method/ .

The Latin Dictionary, see http://latindictionary.wikidot.com/verb:legere .

Robinson K (2009) The element: how finding your passion changes everything. Penguin, New York

Google Scholar

Kerchner C (2011) Learning 2.0: time to move education politics from regulation to capacity building. http://charlestkerchner.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/L2First.pdf . Accessed 28 Sept 2016

Freire P (1970) Pedagogy of the oppressed. Continuum, New York

Scott CL (2015) The futures of learning 3: what kind of pedagogies for the 21st century? UNESCO education research and foresight, Paris. [ERF Working Papers Series, No. 15]. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0024/002431/243126e.pdf . Accessed 28 Sept 2016

Nicolescu B (2016) The transdisciplinary evolution of learning. http://www.learndev.org/dl/nicolescu_f.pdf . Accessed 1 Aug 2016

Kincehloe JL (2008) Critical pedagogy primer. Peter Lang Publishing, New York

Dator J (1993) Society as a social invention and you as a social inventor. University of Hawaii, Hawaii Research Center for Futures Studies. http://www.futures.hawaii.edu/publications/futures-theories-methods/SocialInventor1993.pdf . Accessed 12 Oct 2016

Foucault M (1972) The archaeology of knowledge and the discourse on language (trans: Smith AMS). Pantheon

McKinley J (2015) Critical argument and writer identity: social constructivism as a theoretical framework for EFL academic writing. http://www.englishappliedlinguistics.com/uploads/2/4/1/9/2419477/social_constructivism_mckinley_2015.pdf . Accessed on 26 Sept 2016

Ertmer PA, Newby TJ (2013) Behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism: comparing critical features from an instructional design perspective. http://northweststate.edu/wp-content/uploads/files/21143_ftp.pdf . Accessed 1 Oct 2016

Dvorsky G (2013) The Science behind meditation, and why it makes you feel better. i09 Gizmodo. http://io9.gizmodo.com/how-meditation-changes-your-brain-and-makes-you-feel-b-470030863 . Accessed 3 July 2016

Meiklejohn J et al. (2010) Integrating mindfulness training into K-12 education: fostering the resilience of teachers and students, Springer. http://www.mindfuleducation.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/IMEK-12-ARTICLE-IN-JOURNAL-MINDFULNESS-ONLINE-VERSION-1.pdf . Accessed 5 July 2016

Schonert-Reichl KA, Lawlor MS (2010) The effects of a mindfulness-based education program on pre- and early adolescents’ well-being and social and emotional competence. Mindfulness 1:137. doi: 10.1007/s12671-010-0011-8

Barnes VA, Bauza LB, Treiber FA (2003) Impact of stress reduction on negative school behavior in adolescents. Health Qual Life Outcomes 1:10. doi: 10.1186/1477-7525-1-10

Bodinet J (2016) Futures of hope: the importance of positive futures images at the community college level. World Future Rev 8(4):172–179. doi: 10.1177/1946756716654693

Hurley K et al (2008) Futures studies and feminism. Futures 40:388–407

Boulding E (1992) Can peace be imagined? In: Fahey JJ, Armstrong R (eds) A Peace Reader. Paulist Press, New York

Polak F (1973) The image of the future (trans: Boulding E). Elsevier Scientific Pub. Co, Amsterdam

hooks b (1994) Teaching to transgress. Routledge, New York

Rosenberg M (2015) Nonviolent communication. Puddledancer Press, Encinitas

Lederach J (2003) The little book of conflict transformation. Good Books, Intercourse

Copeland M (2005) Socratic circles: fostering critical and creative thinking in middle and high school. Stenhouse Publishers, Portland

Gonzalez J (2015) The big list of class discussion strategies. Cult of Pedagogy. http://www.cultofpedagogy.com/speaking-listening-techniques/ . Accessed 21 March 2016

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Behavioral Sciences Department, San Diego City College, 1313 Park Blvd, San Diego, CA, 92101, USA

Jelena Cingel Bodinet

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jelena Cingel Bodinet .

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Cingel Bodinet, J. Pedagogies of the futures: Shifting the educational paradigms. Eur J Futures Res 4 , 21 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40309-016-0106-0

Download citation

Received : 31 August 2016

Accepted : 24 November 2016

Published : 07 December 2016

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s40309-016-0106-0

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Futures studies
Peace studies
Critical pedagogy
Active learning
Student-centered learning
Socratic method
Engaged pedagogy

Re-envisioning paradigms of education: towards awareness, alignment, and pluralism

Open access
Published: 19 March 2021
Volume 26 , pages 1045–1058, ( 2021 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

Lindsay R. Baker ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-3989-9685 1 , 2 ,
Shanon Phelan 3 ,
Nicole N. Woods 4 , 5 ,
Victoria A. Boyd 5 , 6 ,
Paula Rowland 5 , 7 &
Stella L. Ng 2 , 5 , 8

7958 Accesses

17 Citations

16 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

In this article we introduce a synthesis of education “paradigms,” adapted from a multi-disciplinary body of literature and tailored to health professions education (HPE). Each paradigm involves a particular perspective on the purpose of education, the nature of knowledge, what knowledge is valued and included in the curriculum, what it means to learn and how learning is assessed, and the roles of teachers and learners in the learning process. We aim to foster awareness of how these different paradigms look in practice and to illustrate the importance of alignment between teaching, learning and assessment practices with paradigmatic values and assumptions. Finally, we advocate for a pluralistic approach that purposefully and meaningfully integrates paradigms of education, enhancing our ability to drive quality in HPE.

A systematic review of pedagogies that support, engage and improve the educational outcomes of Aboriginal students

A Medical Science Educator’s Guide to Selecting a Research Paradigm: Building a Basis for Better Research

Fresh evidence on the relationship between years of experience and teaching quality

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Scholarship in health professions education draws from a range of disciplines and perspectives. Increasingly, these borrowed or imported scholarly methods and practices derive from the social sciences and humanities (Brosnan & Turner, 2009 ; Ousager & Johannessen, 2010 ), yet are often deployed without clear attention to their originating disciplines or “paradigms” of education. Kuhn defines a paradigm as a collection of beliefs shared by scientists, or a set of agreements about how problems are to be understood (Kuhn, 1962 ). Our use of the term paradigm, though inspired by, does not strictly adhere to, Kuhn’s definition. We use paradigms of education somewhat colloquially to mean a system of thought about educational principles and practices. Although principles and practices might be drawn from an array of disciplines outside of the health sciences, scholars from those external disciplines rarely publish their research in health professons education journals (Norman, 2011 ) nor do they necessarily participate in the translation of theory into health professions education (Martimianakis et al., 2009 ). Moreover, educators in the health professions often assume academic leadership roles without formal training in education theory or practice (MacDougall & Drummond, 2005 ; Srinivasan et al., 2011 ). This reality creates a paradoxical system in which those most responsible for the design and delivery of health professions education (HPE) have variable background in relevant content from education, psychology, sociology and the humanties. As a result, innovations in teaching and assessment can be launched and widely-adopted with questionable effectiveness and significant resistence due to misalignment with intended purpose or theoretical origins.

To begin addressing these concerns, we first present the background and history of different ways of thinking about education, drawn from the social science and humanities, and introduce a novel synthesis of education paradigms tailored to HPE. We then present two cases that demonstrate why paradigmatic awareness and thoughtful alignment between education paradigms and practices is advisable. And finally, we advocate for a pluralistic approach that purposefully and meaningfully integrates paradigms of education.

Ways of thinking about education: an overview

Throughout history, scholars across disciplines have introduced a variety of ways to think about the underlying assumptions of education. For example, philosophers often focus on the overall purpose and goals of education, beliefs about what education institutions should teach, and the values and norms revealed through educational practice (Eisner, 1970 ; Noddings, 2018 ; Ornstein & Hunkins, 2017 ; Schiro, 2013 ). Historians are interested in how social, political and cultural influences have shaped what is valued and included in the curriculum throughout various points in history (Kliebard, 2004 ; Ornstein & Hunkins, 2017 ). Psychologists organize around shifts in knowledge bases in the study of human and child development (McInerney, 2013 ; Ornstein & Hunkins, 2017 ). And sociologists analyze education according to its role in people’s lives, the social/economic foundations on which it is based and the public goals schools should aim to achieve (Ballantine & Hammack, 2009 ; Clabaugh & Rozycki, 1990 ; Ornstein & Hunkins, 2017 ). Others discuss education based on how underlying assumptions and beliefs are enacted on a practice level related to curriculum, teaching and learning. For example, curriculum theorists describe different conceptualizations or ways of thinking about what makes up curriculum (Smith, 2000 ), education psychologists group different learning theories together based on similar approaches to how people learn (McInerney, 2013 ; Ornstein & Hunkins, 2017 ), and education theorists categorize according to different teaching approaches or perspectives (Miller & Seller, 1990 ; Pratt, 2002 ). These different ways of categorizing education, while we have only scratched the surface, illustrate the diversity and complexity of ways of talking about and thinking about the purpose, practice and value of education. Assumptions such as these become implicit in education scholarship and practice. Because the original theorists tend to remain working in their own disciplines, the underlying assumptions of borrowed ways of thinking and practicing can be taken for granted after uptake into another field.

In HPE, the language of psychological perspectives and theories are commonly drawn upon to frame curricular decisions and day-to-day educational practices. Yet psychological perspectives do not fully represent the spectrum of educational approaches at work in HPE. Arguably, when a field gives primacy to any one discipline’s framing it can be helpful to step back to consider other philosophical assumptions, epistemological origins and historical, political and sociocultural influences associated with these perspectives and theories. Taking this step can help broaden perspectives and check assumptions, lest they constrain the progression of knowledge. As a first step in this direction, we synthesize educational, psychological, philosophical and sociological perspectives into a framing of paradigms of education for the health professions. To do this, we looked for commonalities in the multiple ways of thinking about education across disciplines and grouped accordingly, using language common to HPE for relatability. The purpose of this framing is to integrate diverse ideas from other disciplines and capture education work that sits outside the margins of dominant approaches in HPE (Baker et al., 2019 ) to propose a pluralistic approach to thinking about education.

Paradigms of education for the health professions: a novel synthesis

We introduce six major paradigms of education that are relevant to HPE. These paradigms represent our synthesis of many of the educational ideologies and categorizations above. For each, we link a philosophy with origins in psychology with a synthesized description of what that philosophy could create (Ballantine & Hammack, 2009 ; Clabaugh & Rozycki, 1990 ; Eisner, 1970 ; Kliebard, 2004 ; Miller & Seller, 1990 ; Ornstein & Hunkins, 2017 ; Pratt, 2002 ; Schiro, 2013 ; Schuh & Barab, 2007 ; Smith, 2000 ) . The paradigms overlap, but differ meaningfully with respect to their philosophical assumptions about what exists in the world (ontology) and how we come to know about what exists (epistemology). Each paradigm has a nuanced perspective on the purpose of education, the nature of knowledge, what knowledge is valued and included in the curriculum, what it means to learn and how learning is assessed, the roles and nature of teachers and students in the learning process. We aim to clarify these distinctions and the underlying assumptions associated with each paradigm. We also identify the limits of each paradigm and when and where other paradigms may offer complementary perspectives and practices. For the purposes of this paper we are focusing on formal education and curriculum, recognizing that this is but one part of the education enterprise. While we present each paradigm as a separate entity in a sequence, there is also temporal overlap and each subsequent paradigm does not render the previous invalid. Our naming convention of "philosophy-goal" means the first word describes the philosophy, and the second word describes our interpretation of aligned goals.

Behaviourism-itizenship

The overall purpose of education in the Behaviourism-Citizenship paradigm is to shape desirable behaviours toward preparing learners to behave as valuable members of society. Within this paradigm there is one external reality and knowledge of singular truths are able to be acquired by individuals. Learners are considered blank slates, and learning involves acquiring correct information about the world. Learning or knowledge acquisition is viewed as a causal process, just like any other natural phenomenon, and the desired outcome of learning is a change in form or frequency of observable behaviour (what people say or do) (Watson, 1913 ). Teachers, who have mastery of subject matter, shape this observable behaviour by transmitting knowledge to learners, using systematic conditioning and reinforcement (McSweeney & Murphy, 2014 ; Pavlov & Anrep, 2003 ). Reinforcement increases the likelihood that a specific behaviour will occur more frequently in the future by delivering or removing a stimulus immediately after a behaviour. Desired behaviours thus become habits, traits or dispositions as they are reinforced and honed by use over time. Assessment and evaluation focus on learners demonstrating these desired behaviours, measured against external standards (for example, entrustable professional activities) (Ten Cate et al., 2015 ). There are many instances in health professions where a behaviourist approach to inscribing proper performance may be most effective. For example, in managing infection prevention and control and donning / doffing personal protective equipment, we need and want clear protocol-driven, heavily regulated procedures. The creation of a citizen identity means that the performance of this process in a rote and standard manner is necessary to the greater good. The Behaviorist-Citizenship paradigm faces critiques of becoming a form of control, regulation, and surveillance which is counter to the ideals of education and learning as avenues for societal advancement and forms of personal growth (Hodges, 2015 ).

Cognitivism-Expertise

The Cognitivism-Expertise paradigm extends the behaviourist paradigm beyond knowing what to do, toward understanding why and when the behaviours may or may not be appropriate. This shift thus develops experts who can respond more flexibly, as opposed to ‘good citizens’ who can conform. Knowledge is still framed as content or information external to the learner, however the focus here is on how this information is stored in memory. Rather than focusing on observable behaviours, the cognitivism-expertise paradigm is concerned with development of the unobservable mental structures and processes within the mind, which define what learners know and frames how they come to acquire new knowledge. Learning is considered by definition to involve the acquisition of knowledge through senses, experiences or formal instruction by teachers. Learners are viewed as information processors and teachers facilitate this processing through focused attention on how information is structured, organized and retrieved, and transferred to new situations. For example, studies of integrated instruction have demonstrated that teaching the conceptual knowledge associated with clinical or procedural knowledge results in more accurate/expert practice (Bandiera et al., 2018 ; Mylopoulos et al., 2017 ). Assessment and evaluation within this paradigm focus on retention and near transfer of learning (when many elements overlap between the conditions in which the learner obtained the knowledge or skill and the new situation) (Castillo et al., 2018 ). The cognitivist paradigm faces critiques for being too narrowly focused on mental representations in the mind, at the expense of how knowledge is socially constructed, shared, and negotiated.

Constructivism-Expertise

The Constructivism-Expertise marks an ontological and epistemological shift about the nature of knowledge. Knowledge isn’t something external to learners, which they acquire; knowledge is something learners actively “construct” as they make meaning of their experiences (Piaget, 1953 ). Within this paradigm, the focus is on understanding mental representations to support learners in constructing new knowledge. Knowledge is seen as dynamic, with new knowledge being constructed by learners upon prior knowledge, in order to solve novel problems (Dewey, 1938 ). The goal of education in this paradigm remains creating experts, and adaptive expertise exemplifies the dynamic nature of knowledge required to enact expert practice (Mylopoulos & Regehr, 2011 ; Mylopoulos et al., 2018 ). Learners engage in activities designed to promote discovery of knowledge and the teacher’s role is to provide appropriate resources and support for each stage of cognitive development. A constructivist curriculum focuses less on specific content, and more on the process of knowledge construction. Learners’ previous knowledge is a key consideration in effective teaching and curricular planning. Assessment focuses on application or transfer of knowledge to novel contexts and preparation for future learning (Mylopoulos et al., 2016 ; Schwartz & Martin, 2004 ). This paradigm emphasizes the learner and formal education, as opposed to learners’ broader interactions in society.

Constructivism-Interlocution

The turn toward Constructivism-Interlocution begins the social focus of education. Constructivism-Interlocution posits that the creation of knowledge cannot be separated from the social environment in which it is formed. Whereas constructivsm-expertise focuses on understanding mental representations, constructivsm-interlocution is focused on the ways in which knowledge is constructed through sociocultural influences and interaction (Vygotsky, 1980 ). Learning is understood as identity formation and the co-creation of knowledge. This is thought to happen through participation in social contexts and enculturation —picking up the jargon, behaviour, and norms of a new social group, and adopting its belief systems to become a member of the culture (Brown et al., 1989 ). Indeed, the function of education is seen as a means to socialize learners to be active participants in communities. Learners are active participants and the role of the teacher is to facilitate social interactions and collaborative work. The constructivism-interlocution paradigm accounts for workplace-based learning and assessment, and brings forward more informal approaches to learning like communities of practice (Lave, 2004 ; Wenger, 1998 ). However, eductional goals are still constructed and structured within formal institutions according to established systemic expectations. In the following paradigms (humanist-self-acualization and transformative-change agency), learning for oneself takes more of a focus as opposed to learning for a particular mandate, and systems and structures themselves are challenged.

Humanism-self-actualization

The humanism-self-actualization paradigm aims to prepare learners to progress towards the realization or fulfillment of one's full potential and autonomy (self-actualization) (Maslow, 1943 ). This paradigm is focused on engaging the learner as a whole, including both cognitive and affective domains. The goals of education take into consideration the learner as a person, attending to learning in relation to emotional and physical wellbeing. To achieve these goals, schooling is learner-driven and learning is viewed as the achievement of one’s personal goals. Learners’ choice and control over education are emphasized, with teachers facilitating and nurturing the learning process. This paradigm views the function of the curriculum as providing personally satisfying experiences for each individual learner. As such, self-evaluation is the only meaningful assessment within this paradigm—external grading is viewed as irrelevant and is thought to encourage students to work for a grade and not for personal satisfaction. The humanist-self-actualization paradigm arguably focuses too much on the individual, a critique that is compounded by evidence that generally, individuals are not able to accurately self-assess (Eva & Regehr, 2008 ).That said, when channeling self-assessment in relation to self-actualization, the goal of self-assessment may not be to determine the level and accuracy of knowledge gains. Rather, it may be to determine whether an individual feels satisfied with their journey toward their own pre-determined goals. This shift in object of self-asessment complicates the mantra that we are poor at self-assessment. Indeed personal meaning and motivation are overlooked aspects of learning and humanist paradigms may offer an important angle into promoting engagement in education (Kusurkar & Croiset, 2015 ). Given these paradigmatic points, the reflective portfolios so commonly used in medical education to document goals and journeys toward them would likely best be situated within the humanism-self-actualization paradigm of education (Driessen et al., 2007 ).

Transformation-change agency

Finally, the aim of the transformation-change agency paradigm is to empower learners to see the social world through a continually more ethical lens, so that they will challenge and change the status quo as agents of change toward a more just society (Freire, 1993 ; Hooks, 1994 ). This paradigm views knowledge as a social construction. Learning is viewed as a shift in perspective toward a critically reflective way of being, which continually challenges individual and societal assumptions and practices, with attention to ethics, justice, and power. Traditional approaches to education are seen to reinforce the status quo, perpetuating inequalities in society and contributing to the oppression of learners themselves (Freire, 1993 ; Hooks, 1994 ). Within the transformation-change agency paradigm, the learner-teacher distinction is minimized. Social reform and responsibility to the future of society are central, beginning by raising the learners’ own awareness of dominant power relations and structures. Assessment focuses on shifts in perspective—conversation foci/content during debriefs and dialogue or responses to systems level scenarios. The transformative-change agency paradigm has faced critique for glossing over requisite knowledge and skill. Additionally, to be transformative is inherently counter-culture; thus transformative education presumes agency that some learners may genuinely lack. At the same time, the advantage of the transformative-change agency paradigm is that it targets education beyond the individual. In instances where existing educational approaches have not fully realized their goals, transformative approaches may offer a way forward. For example, we have seen that interprofessional education alone cannot address some of the hierarchical, workplace-based aspects of interprofessional practice (Baker et al. 2011 ; Paradis & Whitehead, 2015 ). Transformative and critical education efforts may be warranted to help different professionals understand the socially-situated nature of knowledge work and how systems can drive competition between professions. This understanding can then underpin efforts to disrupt unhelpful hierarchies and move toward genuine collaboration. Dialogic education represents one transformative education approach to addressing power relations in a safe and productive manner (Bakhtin, 1981 ; Kumagai & Naidu, 2015 ).

These brief syntheses serve as introductions to what we argue is prerequisite knowledge for applying educational approaches from multiple disciplines. Paradigmatic misalignment or incongruence can have discursive and material consequences; we offer three such examples of misalignment common in HPE. Consider the many critiques of reflection. Some have argued it has become a mechanism for surveillance and thus an inauthentic, burdensome demonstration, instead of a meaningful approach for learning (Hodges, 2015 ; Nelson & Purkis, 2004 ). Others have expanded on this argument to suggest that the pressure to assess reflection according to dominant ways of thinking about learning and assessment are to blame for these instrumental uses of an educational concept that was initially an attempt to balance the dominant, technical-rational approaches to professional practice (Ng et al., 2015 ). This example demonstrates unintended negative consequences when an educational approach, deriving from a humanism-self actualization or transformation-change agency paradigm, is applied without paradigmatic awareness in contexts that are dominated by practices incongruent with these paradigms (e.g. rubric-based assessment). In a recent study examining learners’ epistemological beliefs in relation to simulation-based education, Ng et al. ( 2019 ) identified incongruence between the widely held beliefs about simulation as a safe space for learning and learners’ sense that they needed to perform with certainty and confidence at all times. This example shows that the epistemological culture or climate also impact the ability to align paradigms with practices. And finally, consider the attempts to apply social sciences and humanities approaches to HPE. A focus upon adding a sufficient “dose” of humanities content into curricula rather than the actual purposes of health humanities can limit meaningful application (Bishop, 2008 ; Tsevat et al., 2015 ) as well as “overstuff” the curriculum without commensurate benefit (Whitehead & Kuper, 2012 ). Focusing on dose while failing to attend to humility, power, and learner safety can actually make the teaching of humanities unhelpful within health professions programs. A humanism-self-actualization or transformation-change agency paradigm may be required to fully realize the goals of these intiatives. Attention to paradigms can prevent simply adding another content area while potential benefits of the content are lost.

Toward paradigmatic awareness and alignment

To foster awareness of how different paradigms look in practice and to illustrate the importance of alignment between the teaching, learning and assessment practices with paradigmatic values and assumptions, we present two case examples. We will walk through what an instance of ethics education in the health professions might look like, when informed by two different education paradigms (see Table 1 ). Neither example is meant to be positioned as better or worse than the other. Rather, they are meant to highlight how different paradigms might approach teaching for the same ultimate goal: ethical practice. The cases illustrate that the same goal—preparing practitioners to be able to practice ethically—takes a different starting frame depending on paradigm: teaching reasoning that supports ethical decision-making versus inspiring a virtuous orientation that underlies and supports ethical practice. These frames set the stage for how teaching and assessment unfold, as well as for what exactly is considered a part of teaching and assessment. Notice the greater emphasis on testing in the cognitivism-expertise example and the greater emphasis on tone-setting for the transformation-change agency example. This is not to say a cognitivism-expertise educator would not set the tone or a transformation-change agency educator would not assess learning; however, outcomes and how they are prioritized look different for those more strongly influenced by one paradigm over another. Awareness of these influences matters because a lack thereof could result in uninformed and unproductive paradigmatic misalignment. For example, imagine the incongruence that would result if an instructor used cognitivist testing approaches after asking learners to share personal stories of ethical tensions from practice! Our two case examples demonstrate how focused attention on alignment can help strengthen the connection from educational design to educational outcomes.

Beyond the classroom context, at the broader institutional level, the tensions between paradigms become apparent when looking at how the purpose of higher education has been historically understood. For example, up until the twentieth century, few people attended college. With their financial futures secure, students sought to receive a liberal arts education in order to “refine their comprehension of the virtues of civic participation in a society that they would one day come to shape” (Raelin, 2007 , p. 58). It was not until the middle of the twentieth century that higher education became associated with professional education. This association was a significant shift. No longer just about civic participation for the elite, colleges and universities were in the business of creating employable graduates. In the presence of increased competition for attracting students, these colleges and universities attempted to establish their reputation and standing by continuing to implement strategies that had animated their success as liberal arts colleges. These strategies included hiring prestigious academics, encouraging a strong emphasis on research, and developing disciplinary knowledge. These strategies—while successful for liberal arts colleges and universities—became too far removed from the real world of practice and had the paradoxical effect of devaluing the educational institutions and their possible contribution. This historical tension about the purpose of higher education demonstrates why paradigmatic awareness matters at the institutional level. Belief systems about whether the purpose of higher education is about preparing citizens or creating employable graduates—while not mutually exclusive rationales—do shape higher education institutions. Raelin ( 2007 ) proposes the steady shift away from liberal arts towards professional education, with its associated emphasis on skills and competencies, has been one of the most underrecognized trends in higher education in North America. Attending to these trends on an institutional and societal level has led some concerned sociologists to question: if our education systems continue to tilt away from the liberal arts, will our societies have the social and political literacy that we need to live with the technological advances we are creating (Benjamin, 2013 )? We add to this question: what are the implications of unchecked paradigmatic assumptions in an increasingly global health professions education context? (Martimianakis & Hafferty, 2013 ). Given the socio-cultural and socio-political influences on education, how might unearthing paradigms of education impact international collaborations and knowledge mobilization efforts? All this to say, the tensions between paradigms that show up in the everyday practices of education also manifest in shaping the institutions of education and thus awareness of (mis)alignment is prudent for all educators.

Toward a pluralistic approach

As our synthesis of paradigms demonstrates, many different interests guide education, and HPE initiatives operate in complex contexts, embedded within academic hospitals, community settings, and large higher education organizations (universities and colleges). This complexity has led to a sense of competing demands on learners, and potentially influenced the effects of the education initiatives themselves: even the best laid education plans are subject to “countervailing forces” upon them (Rowland et al. 2019 ). Indeed we are not arguing for paradigmatic purity. Instead we are calling for a paradigmatic pluralism, i.e. an approach to education characterized by paradigmatic awareness, alignment and—when appropriate, purposeful misalignment. Foundational to this approach is the understanding that educational goals and foci may differ between stakeholders, expand, or change; and thus new outcomes of interest must be attended to and assessed, without discarding prior effective approaches and theories. And understanding of and attention to paradigms of education is a prerequisite to pluralism, as we would suggest one cannot optimally mix what one does not deeply understand.

Pluralism is even more important given the consideration of paradigms needs to happen at all levels of the curriculum and across the full spectrum of education. Curricula operate at the level of program, course and session (Goldman & Schroth, 2012 ). And while a health professions training program may operate primarily within one or two paradigms of education, other paradigms may be present at the course or session level where they may flounder or flourish. Further, organizations impose their own priorities and constraints upon curriculum developers, teachers, and students. Thus if we do consider all paradigms of education, then the bounds of what education entails also expands. It includes not only curriculum and pedagogy; it also includes the broad educational values that confront a student from the moment they review a website to consider applying to a program (Razack et al., 2015 ) and the way that admissions committees decide upon which students to admit to their programs (Wright, 2015 ).

While consideration of paradigms, their internal alignment, and their meaningful mixing are what we propose, we also acknowledge that purposefully applying a range of practices from multiple paradigms of education will not come without challenges. The consideration of multiple paradigms also requires attention to the notion of evidence-based and theory-informed education (Fenwick, 2016 ; Greenhalgh et al., 2003 ; Trisha Greenhalgh, 2010 ; Horsley & Regehr, 2018 ; Regehr, 2010 ; Van Der Vleuten et al., 2000 ). When drawing from data and theories derived or generated from different epistemological traditions, multiple definitions exist for what is “best,” what is high quality, what is valid. Biomedical and psychosocial approaches dominate medicine; cognitivist- and constructivist approaches are thus most amenable to HPE. These approaches fit well together because they have similar epistemologies. All draw upon a dominantly agreed upon scientific method and the conceptions of knowledge this method can produce. Humanistic approaches differ, epistemologically, in that their concern is far more personal and thus outcomes are more challenging to demonstrate according to prevailing evidence-based approaches. Transformative approaches inherently challenge dominant approaches—not in terms of their scientific claims, but in terms of the sociopolitical effects of these claims, by asking questions like who benefits from this particular framing of ethics, or professionalism, or disability/disease? Who is harmed by it?

Indeed paradigms of education that position the teacher and learner more as partners in knowledge creation or discovery thus also challenge traditional hierarchies. To be transformative as an educator is to challenge the status quo. That said, we do not propose that one must completely overthrow established health professions education systems. We believe that each paradigm has merits for certain aspects of health professions education. For example, when teaching infection control, a behaviourism-citizenship paradigm, though the most dated of all the paradigms, may offer useful practices. Yet bridging it with other paradigms could prove more helpful, hence our argument for pluralism. But pluralism requires attention to the paradigms and practices outlined in this paper as well as potentially thoughtful consideration of complex and network based theoretical framings. Future conceptual work on this topic could explore how theories like actor-network theory, activity theory, and others (Fenwick, 2016 ) could contribute to pluralistic approaches to education. This discrepancy between the dominant paradigms of HPE and the humanism-self-actualization and transformation-change agency paradigms creates a tension in integrating these approaches into HPE (Kuper et al., 2017 ). To move past or work productively with such tension requires a critical questioning of each educator’s own assumptions about education. And at the systems level, it requires a careful look at the broader systems driving education in society, workplaces, and health professions training programs.

A pluralistic approach to education would see educators knowledgeable about multiple paradigms of education, and adept at paradigmatic alignment. Educators would be able to carefully consider how the different paradigms work together and where they conflict, so they can help ensure clear, aligned educational practices that are evaluated appropriately. This alignment matters particularly during a time of widespread curricular reform efforts within health professions training programs, wherein performance-driven outcome measurement rules academic health science systems. If educators lack awareness and fail to align, they may not only promote sub-optimal education, but may also be unable to appropriately evaluate educational efforts or demonstrate meaningful impacts where they exist. With alignment, the inevitable pluralism of paradigms of education can be engaged well, increasing our ability to drive quality in health professions education. Informed pluralism could offer a hedge against slipping into dogmatic or unthoughtful approaches to education in the health professions.

Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The dialogic imagination: Four essays . University of Texas Press.

Baker, L., Egan-Lee, E., Martimianakis, M. A. T., & Reeves, S. (2011). Relationships of power: Implications for interprofessional education. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 25 (2), 98–104.

Article Google Scholar

Baker, L., Wright, S., Mylopoulos, M., Kulasegaram, K., & Ng, S. (2019). Aligning and applying the paradigms and practices of education. Academic Medicine, 94 (7), 1060.

Ballantine, J. H., & Hammack, F. M. (2009). The sociology of education (6th ed.). Pearson Press.

Google Scholar

Bandiera, G., Kuper, A., Mylopoulos, M., Whitehead, C., Ruetalo, M., Kulasegaram, K., & Woods, N. N. (2018). Back from basics: Integration of science and practice in medical education. Medical Education, 52 (1), 78–85.

Benjamin, R. (2013). People’s science: Bodies and rights on the stem cell frontier . Stanford University Press.

Book Google Scholar

Bishop, J. P. (2008). Rejecting medical humanism: Medical humanities and the metaphysics of medicine. The Journal of Medical Humanities, 29 (1), 15–25.

Brosnan, C., & Turner, B. S. (2009). Handbook of the sociology of medical education . Routledge.

Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18 (1), 32–42.

Castillo, J. M., Park, Y. S., Harris, I., Cheung, J. J. H., Sood, L., Clark, M. D., et al. (2018). A critical narrative review of transfer of basic science knowledge in health professions education. Medical Education . Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Clabaugh, G. K., & Rozycki, E. G. (1990). Understanding schools: The foundations of education . Harper & Row.

Dewey, John. (1938). Experience & Education . New York, NY: Kappa Delta Pi.

Driessen, E., Van Tartwijk, J., Van Der Vleuten, C., & Wass, V. (2007). Portfolios in medical education: Why do they meet with mixed success? A systematic review. Medical Education .

Eisner, E. W. (1970). Curriculum development: Sources for a foundation for the field of curriculum. Curriculum Theory Network. 2 (5), 3–15.

Eva, K. W., & Regehr, G. (2008). “I’ll never play professional football” and other fallacies of self-assessment. Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions. , 28 (1), 14–19.

Fenwick, T. (2016). Professional responsibility and professionalism: A sociomaterial examination . Taylor and Francis.

Freire, P. (1993). Pedagogy of the Oppressed (20th Anniv.) . Continuum.

Goldman, E., & Schroth, W. S. (2012). Perspective: Deconstructing integration a framework for the rational application of integration as a guiding curricular strategy. Academic Medicine, 87 (6), 729–734.

Greenhalgh, T., Toon, P., Russell, J., Wong, G., Plumb, L., & Macfarlane, F. (2003). Transferability of principles of evidence based medicine to improve educational quality: Systematic review and case study of an online course in primary health care. BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.), 326 (7381), 142–145.

Greenhalgh, T. (2010). What is this knowledge that we seek to “exchange”? The Milbank quarterly, 88 (4), 492–499.

Hodges, B. D. (2015). Sea monsters & whirlpools: Navigating between examination and reflection in medical education. Medical Teacher, 37 (3), 261–266.

hooks, bell. (1994). Teaching To Transgress . Routledge.

Horsley, T., & Regehr, G. (2018). When are two interventions the same? Implications for reporting guidelines in education. Medical Education, 52 (2), 141–143.

Kliebard, H. M. (2004). The struggle for the American curriculum 1893–1958 . Routledge.

Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scentific revolutions . University of Chicago Press.

Kumagai, A. K., & Naidu, T. (2015). Reflection, dialogue, and the possibilities of space. Academic Medicine, 90 (3), 283–288.

Kuper, A., Veinot, P., Leavitt, J., Levitt, S., Li, A., Goguen, J., et al. (2017). Epistemology, culture, justice and power: Non-bioscientific knowledge for medical training. Medical Education, 51 (2), 158–173

Kusurkar, R. A., & Croiset, G. (2015). Self-determination theory and scaffolding applied to medical education as a continuum. Academic Medicine, 90 (11), 1431.

Lave, J. (2004). Situating learning in communities of practice. In Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 63–82). American Psychological Association.

MacDougall, J., & Drummond, M. J. (2005). The development of medical teachers: An enquiry into the learning histories of 10 experienced medical teachers. Medical education, 39 (12), 1213–1220.

Martimianakis, M. A., & Hafferty, F. W. (2013). The world as the new local clinic: A critical analysis of three discourses of global medical competency. Social Science and Medicine, 87, 31–38.

Martimianakis, M. A., Hodges, B. D., & Wasylenki, D. (2009). Understanding the challenges of integrating scientists and clinical teachers in psychiatry education: Findings from an innovative faculty development program. Academic Psychiatry, 33 (3), 241–247.

Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50 (4), 370–396.

McInerney, D. M. (2013). Educational Psychology—Constructing Learning . Pearson Higher Education.

McSweeney, F., & Murphy, E. (Eds.). (2014). The Wiley Blackwell Handbook of operant and classical conditioning . Wiley.

Miller, J. P., & Seller, W. (1990). Curriculum, perspectives and practice. John P. Miller, Wayne Seller. Longman.

Mylopoulos, M., Borschel, D., Obrien, T., Martimianakis, S., & Woods, N. N. (2017). Exploring integration in action: Competencies as Building blocks of expertise. Academic Medicine, 92 (12), 1794–1799.

Mylopoulos, M., Brydges, R., Woods, N. N., Manzone, J., & Schwartz, D. L. (2016). Preparation for future learning: A missing competency in health professions education? Medical Education, 50 (1), 115–123.

Mylopoulos, M., Kulasegaram, K., & Woods, N. N. (2018). Developing the experts we need: Fostering adaptive expertise through education. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 24 (3), 674–677.

Mylopoulos, M., & Regehr, G. (2011). Putting the expert together again. Medical Education, 45 (9), 920–926.

Nelson, S., & Purkis, M. E. (2004). Mandatory Reflection: The Canadian reconstitution of the competent nurse. Nursing Inquiry , 11 (4), 247–257.

Ng, S. L., Kangasjarvi, E., Lorello, G. R., Nemoy, L., & Brydges, R. (2019). ‘There shouldn’t be anything wrong with not knowing’: Epistemologies in simulation. Medical Education, 53 (10), 1049–1059.

Ng, S. L., Kinsella, E. A., Friesen, F., & Hodges, B. (2015). Reclaiming a theoretical orientation to reflection in medical education research: A critical narrative review. Medical Education, 49 (5), 461–475.

Noddings, N. (2018). Philosophy of Education . Routledge.

Norman, G. (2011). Fifty years of medical education research: Waves of migration. Medical Education, 45 (8), 785–791.

Ornstein, A. C., & Hunkins, F. P. (2017). Curriculum : foundations, principles, and issues (7th ed.). Pearson.

Ousager, J., & Johannessen, H. (2010). Humanities in undergraduate medical education: A literature review. Academic Medicine, 85 (6), 988–998.

Paradis, E., & Whitehead, C. R. (2015). Louder than words: Power and conflict in interprofessional education articles, 1954–2013. Medical Education, 49 (4), 399–407.

Pavlov, I. P., & Anrep, G. V. (2003). Conditioned reflexes . Courier Corporation.

Piaget, J. (1953). The origin of intelligence in the child . Kogan Paul: Routledge.

Pratt, D. D. (2002). Five perspectives on teaching. Spring, 93, 5–16.

Raelin, J. A. (2007). The return of practice to higher education: Resolution of a paradox. The Journal of General Education, 56 (1), 57–77.

Razack, S., Hodges, B., Steinert, Y., & Maguire, M. (2015). Seeking inclusion in an exclusive process: Discourses of medical school student selection. Medical Education, 49 (1), 36–47.

Regehr, G. (2010). It’s NOT rocket science: Rethinking our metaphors for research in health professions education. Medical Education. , 44 (1), 31–39.

Rowland, P., Boyd, V. A., Lising, D., Whitehead, C., & Ng, S. (2019). When logics of learning collide: An analysis of two workplace-based continuing education programs. Advances in Health Sciences Education (Submitted).

Schiro, M. (2013). Curriculum theory: Conflicting visions and enduring concerns . SAGE Publications.

Schuh, K., & Barab, S. (2007). Philosophical perspectives. In J. Spector, M. Merrill, J. Van Merrienboer, & M. Driscoll (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (3rd ed., pp. 67–82). Taylor and Francis.

Schwartz, D. L., & Martin, T. (2004). Inventing to prepare for future learning: The hidden efficiency of encouraging original student production in statistics instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 22 (2), 129–184.

Smith, M. K. (2000). What is curriculum? Exploring theory and practice, the encylopaedia of informal education . http://infed.org/mobi/curriculum-theory-and-practice/ . Accessed 29 Oct 2019.

Srinivasan, M., Li, S.-T.T., Meyers, F. J., Pratt, D. D., Collins, J. B., Braddock, C., et al. (2011). “Teaching as a Competency”: Competencies for medical educators. Academic Medicine: Journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges, 86 (10), 1211–1220.

Ten Cate, O., Chen, H. C., Hoff, R. G., Peters, H., Bok, H., & Van Der Schaaf, M. (2015). Curriculum development for the workplace using Entrustable Professional Activities (EPAs): AMEE Guide No. 99. Medical Teacher, 37 (11), 983–1002.

Tsevat, R. K., Sinha, A. A., Gutierrez, K. J., & DasGupta, S. (2015). Bringing home the health humanities: Narrative humility, structural competency, and engaged pedagogy. Academic medicine, 90 (11), 1462–1465.

Van Der Vleuten, C. P. M., Dolmans, D. H. J. M., & Scherpbier, A. J. J. A. (2000). The need for evidence in education. Medical Teacher, 22 (3), 246–250.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1980). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes . In M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman (Eds.). Harvard University Press.

Watson, J. B. (1913). Psychology as the behaviourist views it. Psychological Review, 20 (2), 158–177.

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, Meaning and Identity. Cambridge University Press .

Whitehead, C., & Kuper, A. (2012). Beyond the biomedical feedlot. Academic Medicine, 87 (11), 1485.

Wright, S. (2015). Medical school personal statements: A measure of motivation or proxy for cultural privilege? Advances in Health Sciences Education, 20 (3), 627–643.

Download references

This paper was funded by a SSHRC connection grant (611-2017-0493) and the Arrell Family Chair in Health Professions Teaching.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Psychiatry, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada

Lindsay R. Baker

Centre for Faculty Development, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto At St. Michael’s Hospital, 30 Bond Street, Toronto, ON, M5B 2W8, Canada

Lindsay R. Baker & Stella L. Ng

School of Occupational Therapy, Faculty of Health, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Canada

Shanon Phelan

Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada

Nicole N. Woods

The Wilson Centre, Unviersity of Toronto At University Health Network, Toronto, Canada

Nicole N. Woods, Victoria A. Boyd, Paula Rowland & Stella L. Ng

Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada

Victoria A. Boyd

Department of Occupational Science and Occupational Therapy, Faculty of Medicine, Toronto, Canada

Paula Rowland

Department of Speech-Language Pathology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada

Stella L. Ng

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lindsay R. Baker .

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Baker, L.R., Phelan, S., Woods, N.N. et al. Re-envisioning paradigms of education: towards awareness, alignment, and pluralism. Adv in Health Sci Educ 26 , 1045–1058 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-021-10036-z

Download citation

Received : 08 November 2019

Accepted : 16 February 2021

Published : 19 March 2021

Issue Date : August 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-021-10036-z

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Find a journal
Publish with us
Track your research

Sir Ken Robinson on Creativity and Changing Educational Paradigms

By maria popova.

What’s not to love about RSA Animate? Here’s their animated adaptation of Sir Ken Robinson’s talk about changing educational paradigms, based on one of the best TED talks of all time, in which Sir Ken makes a compelling case for how schools are killing creativity:

We have a system of education that is modeled on the interest of industrialism and in the image of it. School are still pretty much organized on factory lines — ringing bells, separate facilities, specialized into separate subjects. We still educate children by batches.

With his signature soundbite-ready cadence and perfectly timed wit, Sir Ken — always the intellectual showman — once again manages to ruffle some academic feathers while raising some important questions. I’m particularly on board with his emphasis on the role of divergent thinking:

Divergent thinking isn’t the same thing as creativity. I define creativity as the process of having original ideas that have value. Divergent thinking isn’t a synonym but is an essential capacity for creativity. It’s the ability to see lots of possible answers to a question, lots of possible ways to interpret a question, to think laterally, to think not just in linear or convergent ways, to see multiple answers, not one.

The full talk is well worth watching:

Robinson’s most recent book, The Element: How Finding Your Passion Changes Everything , is an absolute must-read, wherever you may stand on education.

— Published October 21, 2010 — https://www.themarginalian.org/2010/10/21/sir-ken-robinson-rsa/ —

www.themarginalian.org

PRINT ARTICLE

Email article, filed under, animation creativity culture education rsa rsa animate ted, view full site.

The Marginalian participates in the Bookshop.org and Amazon.com affiliate programs, designed to provide a means for sites to earn commissions by linking to books. In more human terms, this means that whenever you buy a book from a link here, I receive a small percentage of its price, which goes straight back into my own colossal biblioexpenses. Privacy policy . (TLDR: You're safe — there are no nefarious "third parties" lurking on my watch or shedding crumbs of the "cookies" the rest of the internet uses.)

Ken Robinson: Changing education paradigms

Ken Robinson’s observations of intersections between education and psychology come delivered through some delightful animations. He peers into three of the most disconcerting elements of the school system — an increase in ADD and ADHD diagnoses, escalating drop-out rates and poorly-funded art programs — and discusses the sociological and psychological principles at play here. In spite of some concerns about economics and resources, there are viable solutions that nurture creativity and produce healthy, productive children.

Watch the Ted Talk here

APS regularly opens certain online articles for discussion on our website. Effective February 2021, you must be a logged-in APS member to post comments. By posting a comment, you agree to our Community Guidelines and the display of your profile information, including your name and affiliation. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations present in article comments are those of the writers and do not necessarily reflect the views of APS or the article’s author. For more information, please see our Community Guidelines .

Please login with your APS account to comment.

Teaching: Parenting by Lying

Parents and other guardians lie to their children for a host of reasons, research confirms. Students have an opportunity to explore why parents evade the truth.

Cattell Fund Projects Explore Prenatal Maternal Distress, High-Stakes Decision-Making, Neuroscience of Reading

Fellowships for Elisabeth Conradt of the University of Utah, Ian Krajbich of the Ohio State University, and Nicole Landi of the University of Connecticut and Yale University will allow them to take extended sabbatical periods for their research.

Parental Burnout Can Lead to Harmful Outcomes for Parent and Child

The intense exhaustion of parental burnout can lead parents to feel detached from their children and unsure of their parenting abilities.

Privacy Overview

Change.is here to inspire and push

each of us to do what we need to do:

Change the World!

Changing Education Paradigms – Ken Robinson

Sir ken robinson makes an entertaining and profoundly moving case for creating an education system that nurtures (rather than undermines) creativity. this animation was adapted from a talk given at the rsa by sir ken robinson, world-renowned education and creativity expert and recipient of the rsa's benjamin franklin award., changing education paradigms - ken robinson... via change.is.

Latest News

The changing paradigm of education.

The Changing Paradigm of Education: A review of Ken Robinson’s thoughts on schooling

By Seamus O’Keeffe

Changing Education Paradigms is a narrative from Sir Ken Robinson that provides an inspirational insight and overview of the current worldwide education structure, the effects that it is having on our school kids and society, and an invitation to consider what it would take to shift the current industrial concept of schooling to a more sustainable one.

As we proceed through the 21st Century we are constantly being presented with a raft of radical advancements, learning curves and developments in our technological use and capability. This in turn has a similarly radical impact in terms of change to pedagogical practice and education. In our current technological society, normal is a forever expanding concept. As individuals we are constantly distracted in and by our everyday lives and the technology that we wrap around ourselves. Bombarded by text messages, meeting alerts, emails and advertising on a continuous basis, we are in a constant state of distraction and become more and more disinterested in certain things as the years progress.

As adults we tend to have the coping mechanisms in place to deal with this and concentrate on what seems or what we deem as relevant to our lives. According to Ken Robinson when the same or similar disinterest and distraction manifests itself in a child, our society labels them as Attention-deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) sufferers.

ADHD is a neurobehavioral or developmental disorder and it mainly impacts school-aged children and can manifest as restlessness, impulsivity, and a lack of focus. This can impair children’s ability to learn. ADHD has been a controversial topic since the 1970’s with politicians, teachers, family and the media all having varying input and opinions on the topic. Sir Ken Robinson provides an interesting take on the topic of ADHD, claiming, “Our children are living in the most intensive stimulating period in the history of the earth. They’re being besieged with information and coerced for attention from every platform: computers, iPhones,advertising hoardings, and hundreds of television channels. And we’re penalizing them now for getting distracted. From what? Boring stuff. At school, for the most part. It seems to me not a coincidence, totally, that the instance of ADHD has risen in parallel with the growth of the standardized testing”. He reflects on the increase in technology and standardised testing, seeing these as factors that mirror the increasing trend in ADHD prevalence.

The current National Curriculum acknowledges the advances of technology and its increasing place in the education system. “In our current technological society, the normal concept of literacy is expanding to include all forms of the media and electronic text. This is in addition to the alphabetic and number systems traditionally taught in schools. Digital text is spreading throughout every aspect of our lives. Students engage with a variety of texts for enjoyment. They listen to, read, view, interpret and evaluate spoken, written and multimodal texts in which the primary purpose is aesthetic, as well as texts designed to inform and persuade. These include various types of media texts including newspapers, film and digital texts, junior and early adolescent novels, poetry, nonfiction and dramatic performances.

Students develop their understanding of how texts, including media texts, are influenced by context, purpose and audience. These abilities vary in different social and cultural contexts according to need and demand’ (Australian National Curriculum, English 2012).

While it is noteworthy the acknowledgement and place technology now has, the overall archaic structure of education remains the same. As a first step this needs to be changed, technology needs to be integrated into the curriculum in the same ways that reading and writing have been integrated. It needs to attain the level of importance that teaching the classics has traditionally had. The current curriculum leads teachers into teaching the curriculum and then adding technology on top of that. To integrate technology and to partner the students, teachers can over time create an environment of divergent thinking within the classroom environment. By creating divergent thinking we develop the skills and abilities to be more able to deal with the problems of our times. As Sir Ken Robinson illustrates, in the past, the accumulated knowledge held in the brain was sufficient. In today’s modern world, it no longer is.

Robinson argues that we need our children and students to make sense of their world, a world very different from the one we experienced. And, if we do want our students to make sense of their world, we need to create opportunities for them to think at higher levels, to think outside the box. He gives the following example of such divergent thinking: Question: “How many uses can you think of for a paper clip?” Answer: “Well, could the paper clip be 200 foot tall and be made of foam rubber?” The range of technology that today’s children have adopted and have adapted to has created a new environment that they actively engage in for social stimulation, as well as an environment that has become second nature for them. To reach these kids and engage with them in a teacher – student role, you must encourage them to be active, reflective, inquiring and investigating in their learning, taking time to explore ideas. We need to provide them with the learning activities that create those opportunities. We need to be constantly learning and developing what is required to better equip our students and ourselves for life and work in the 21st Century.

Media & Information Literacy For Teachers

September 23, 2014 Module/Unit: Module 9 , Unit 2

Changing Education Paradigms

Download the Changing education paradigms here

A blog of the Middle East Women's Initiative

Women’s Education: Moving from Utility to Intellectual Freedom

Sola Mahfouz, Global Fellow, challenges the dominant educational framework that sees women’s education as key to national economic development and social progress. Instead, she advocates for education as a pathway to individual and, eventually, societal change.

shutterstock.com/Danial.F16

But having moved from Afghanistan to America, I've observed that women's empowerment is often framed in material and external terms.

“The great thing is for life to be seen through a prism," she said. "In other words, life must be divided in our consciousness into its simplest elements, as if into the seven primary colors, and each element must be studied separately," Betrothed , Anton Chekhov.

This notion of empowerment—of dissecting life to understand its core—has always represented the pinnacle of intellectual achievement for me. To dissect each strand of existence, much like light refracted through a prism into a spectrum, is to truly comprehend the world. But having moved from Afghanistan to America, I've observed that women's empowerment is often framed in material and external terms.

Challenging education paradigms

Women's empowerment is a familiar rallying cry, often underscored by the saying, “Educate a woman, educate a generation.” However, this perspective subtly upholds traditional, patriarchal values by viewing women's empowerment through the lens of societal benefits only, such as how it will educate the next generation or its contribution to the Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Indeed, a study by the McKinsey Global Institute found that advancing women’s equality could add $12 trillion to global GDP by 2025.

In Afghanistan, where my education was abruptly halted at the age of eleven, the conventional paths of learning were closed to me. But necessity, as it often does, fostered a different kind of resolve. My pursuit of knowledge became a solitary endeavor, driven not by societal expectations or economic ambitions but by a deeper, more urgent inquiry into the nature of existence itself. I turned to the ancient philosophers, to Plato and his peers, who grappled with life's profound questions. This journey of the mind also led me to the rich complexities of human dynamics through Russian literature and the abstract beauty of theoretical physics.

In this self-guided learning, within the walls of my mind, I found the space to question the prevailing narratives of empowerment that too often view women’s progress through a utilitarian lens. This perspective measures advancement by how it serves others, overlooking the intrinsic value of the pursuit itself.

Beyond utilitarian empowerment

This oversight, I have come to realize, might explain why fields that thrive on passion and introspection, such as philosophy and theoretical physics, see fewer women. These disciplines demand devotion to ideas for their own sake, not for the tangible rewards they may bring.

Women remain underrepresented in philosophy and physics. For example, women earned only about 20% of PhDs in physics and under 35% of those in philosophy in the United States in recent years.

I propose a new vision of empowerment that emphasizes self-realization and personal fulfillment above external utility. It’s time to shift the dialogue from what women can do for the world to how they can thrive within it on their own terms.

If we are to realize a more just and equitable society, we must recognize women not only as workers and entrepreneurs but as intellectual leaders, who can reshape the foundational structures of our social, political, and economic orders.

In intellectual spheres, historically, women have been sidelined and relegated to positions that limit their visibility and influence in shaping philosophical and political discourses. This marginalization is not reflective of their capabilities but is a result of systemic barriers that restrict their access and opportunities in these fields. Having studied the world deeply, I can already see how much the structure of the world is not right. It lacks the female perspective and intellectual input.

Transforming the discourse

This approach finds voice in the works of profound thinkers like Simone de Beauvoir, whose seminal book, The Second Sex , challenged conventional wisdom. Elucidating how ostensibly neutral structures have historically marginalized women, she laid a foundational stone for the feminist movements. Beauvoir didn’t just participate in the already existent feminist discourse; she turned it on its head.

In Free: Coming of Age at the End of History Lea Ypi, intricately weaving her lived experiences of the post-communist transition with philosophical insights, compels us to reconsider the essence of freedom, both collectively and individually, urging a profound reevaluation of its meaning in our modern democracies.

Similarly, Hannah Arendt’s exploration of the 'banality of evil' and other works offers indispensable lessons on the nature of power and moral responsibility. Her philosophical inquiries into the ordinary origins of extraordinary wrongs challenge us to maintain ethical vigilance and critical thought as pillars of democratic societies.

As demonstrated through these incredible female thinkers, true empowerment transcends utilitarian measures; it begins with foundational elements. It must advocate for intellectual freedom, encouraging the development of independent thought and self-determination.

In this quest, our efforts should be directed not only toward integrating women into the existing educational and intellectual frameworks but also toward questioning and reimagining these frameworks altogether. It is not sufficient to add women to the predominant discourse; we must transform the discourse itself. This approach not only advances gender equality but also enriches our collective intellectual and moral life, steering us toward a more thoughtful and equitable world.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not express the official position of the Wilson Center.

About the Author

Sola mahfouz, middle east program.

The Wilson Center’s Middle East Program serves as a crucial resource for the policymaking community and beyond, providing analyses and research that helps inform US foreign policymaking, stimulates public debate, and expands knowledge about issues in the wider Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region. Read more

Middle East Women's Initiative

The Middle East Women's Initiative (MEWI) promotes the empowerment of women in the region through an open and inclusive dialogue with women leaders from the Middle East and continuous research. Read more

Explore More from Enheduanna

Peter DeWitt's

Finding common ground.

A former K-5 public school principal turned author, presenter, and leadership coach, DeWitt provides insights and advice for education leaders. He can be found at www.petermdewitt.com . Read more from this blog .

8 Steps to Revolutionize Education

Nobody has to be convinced that the education system is broken. In the words of Leonard Cohen “Everybody Knows .” A recent Pew Research article states that half of Americans feel that education is going in the wrong direction. What to do about it is the key question.

Certainly, we have seen solutions come and go over the decades. Why might it be different as we approach 2025? We know it feels like the worst of times, but my argument is that there is reason to believe that there could be forces at work that could cause “new systemness breakthroughs.”

System change is when a new combination of factors occurs that becomes a wedge powerful and attractive enough to begin the transformation of the current system. Systemness itself is the interaction of a small number of powerful factors and the effect of those actions.

What are those actions? Around 1925, management theorist Mary Parker Follett proposed certain management techniques that were against the grain—the goal of management she said was “unity not uniformity"; to have greater integration via “power with,” not “power over"; and the role of leaders is “to produce other leaders.” Additionally, she said, we need “joint determination and problem-solving” in relation to complex problems.

Over the years, Parker Follett’s name faded, but many of her ideas are confirmed by more detailed research and practice. We have a chance now to transform our systems to become places where students belong, thrive, and engage in deeper learning. The reasons for that are as follows:

We are getting desperate for improvement in our systems;
We do in fact have decades of further research and practice that has proved Parker Follett right (and above all has given us greater specificity about what the key concepts look like in practice);
More people are using these ideas;
Those lower in the power structure (such as the young—indeed the very young) are becoming active change agents; and
Some of those in power are becoming increasingly worried (either because they know they are increasingly in danger and/or they are finally wanting to do the right thing for humanity).

What is the right thing, either by research, by humanity, or other evidence? The following figure sets us on the new required path.

As you can see, there is a new innovation on the list—artificial intelligence. It’s still too early to decide how impactful AI can be because the research and practice focusing on it is mixed. I predict that AI’s greatest contribution will turn out to be that it is causing humans to think more deeply . The best districts we know are in fact big users and innovators, using AI in the service of the other seven factors. Time will tell.

Research and practice related to factors 1-7 have proved that these seven in concert can cause system transformation. Part and parcel of this development are new purposes linked to new metrics of progress including belongingness, the six Global Competencies (character/compassion, citizenship, collaboration, communication, creativity, and critical thinking), and pedagogy that prepares students for society.

The positive interaction of purpose, belonging, time, autonomy, good leaders, teachers and students together, and community linkage creates system change. There is research evidence that each of the seven key factors independently increases wellness. There are other equally curious hunches we have: It may be comparatively easier to increase well-being than to boost deep learning.

Well-being without learning is impossible to sustain; and learning without well-being depletes the spirit. I don’t mean that getting better wellness is easy, but that we know more about restorative practices, and that such practices are intuitively appealing to humans. On the other hand, deep pedagogy and learning are harder to grasp—and establish.

Systemness, based on well-being and learning, continuously produces people who are good in society and for society! Such development would establish a teaching profession that could have been but never fully evolved over the past two centuries: a partnership between students and teachers integrated in society as an in-built generative force that survives and thrives. Let’s be clear, I am talking about establishing a new teaching profession in partnership with students—something that has eluded us for two centuries and is now feasible and essential to our survival!

We know some of this because we work closely with some districts that are implementing these ideas, such as the Ottawa Catholic School Board with 87 schools and 45,000 students. We know it’s a big success because of its use of the eight factors.

However, we wanted a second opinion, so we commissioned Sarah Fine and Jal Mehta, authors of In Search of Deeper Learning , to do a case study. They were skeptical that a big district could be comprehensively as good as we claimed. They came, they saw, they were convinced and wrote a report: “ A Big Tent” Strategy for System-wide Transformation (Fine & Mehta 2024). They called the phenomenon “emergent systemness,” which is what happens when a district uses the eight factors interactively.

Another district equally impressive that we work with is the Anaheim Union High School District with 20 schools and 26,000 students in a high-poverty district that again testifies to the critical importance of the eight factors in dynamic interaction.

My point is not to “literally follow these districts.” It’s a bigger call: Join a movement to experience systemness change in these times. It is a power move for equity and equality. It is “power with” to quote Parker Follett. It is “belonging and targeted universalism and coming together across the divides” a la John Powell . It is the syndrome of the eight factors working together that makes the difference. It is weird because we have never done it before. Let’s start now!

The opinions expressed in Peter DeWitt’s Finding Common Ground are strictly those of the author(s) and do not reflect the opinions or endorsement of Editorial Projects in Education, or any of its publications.

Sign Up for The Savvy Principal

Edweek top school jobs.

Signage is shown outside on the grounds of Pikesville High School, May 2, 2012, in Baltimore County, Md. The most recent criminal case involving artificial intelligence emerged in late April 2024, from the Maryland high school, where police say a principal was framed as racist by a fake recording of his voice.

Sign Up & Sign In

Changing Education Paradigms: Educator’s Views and Perspectives

By Ronin Research Scholar Christopher H. Punzalan

There are a series of continuous developments in the field of education which are found to be essential in order to obtain the prescribed growth of learners. In recent times, most of the educators tend to discover innovative teaching strategies that will be able to cope with the current demand of the educational system. Based on Ken Robinson’s TED Talk on Changing Education Paradigms , education strives to concentrate on the economic and cultural well-being of the current educational system that enlightens the issues and problems needed to be overcome by the modern teachers and learners. These two factors can be considered as a basement to support the dynamic improvement of the education system. As for me, economics is a great value for a single or group of states for them to foresee developments through innovative-thinking that will help build a better future while cultural aspect is the basis or heritage that a country can showcase to others in order to discover developing trends and issues. These two perspectives I think can be a better foundation to meet our desired goals in educational advancement by providing every learner the capacity to individually respond to the changes of the environments and life satisfactions.

What we should do according to Robinson’s TED talk is promote intellectual culture of enlightenment as this goal would create originality or identification. In the context of the Philippines, this approach would promote the Philippine heritage to come up with a more advanced but different type of educational system from other nations. Also, it is a task for us teachers to create a space for the students to view economic circumstances so that they may be able to build strategic ways to help the Philippines become sustainable. These two things are too significant for us educators since they view realizations of the world and we can integrate these tips in our teaching strategies. As an integrated science teacher, it is a challenge for me to incorporate lessons from different interests and how to land on a specific goal where my students can easily adapt the learning requirement. It is my part to develop inventive thinkers and problem solver individuals according to the current program implemented in the Philippines. I know it is a challenging task for now but I know through continuous self-improvement I can be able to impart better learning and significant knowledge to my students. The current situation of our educational paradigm is that it is modeled in industrialization. This condition is difficult to be achieved by the learners and workforce of the future so for them to meet this objective we educators must realize to act according to it first before we teach our students about it. We should become good models of sustainable development and progress to promote good understanding for each learner we have in our class.

What are the helpful techniques that can create an avenue whereas students can be able to become creative? Divergent thinking is one way to advance the essential capacity of learners and widen their opportunities in different fields instead of adopting convergent ways of thinking.

Another thing is the standardization of the education paradigm and I, as a graduate of the previous educational curriculum in the Philippines, could really agree with this connotation. We teachers should develop our pattern in imparting knowledge and executing our jobs by allowing our students to discover their capacities on how they will interact with our given tasks or assignments. The reason why differentiated classroom strategies became a contemporary approach to teaching the K to 12 Curriculum was because it supported the capabilities or strengths of individual differences among learners. The question now is how do we square that circle? What are the helpful techniques that can create an avenue whereas students can be able to become creative? Divergent thinking is one way to advance the essential capacity of learners and widen their opportunities in different fields instead of adopting convergent ways of thinking. This motivation is a tool for us modern teachers to elevate the collaborative outcomes and engage our learners, who are inventive-thinkers and future developers, to a more industrialized environment.

Christopher Punzalan

Christopher Punzalan is a research scholar at the Ronin Institute, United States, an associate member of the DOST National Research Council of the Philippines, and an assistant professor at the National University Philippines. Currently, he is pursuing an EdD program in educational management. Additionally, he finished a postgraduate summer school at the Education University of Hong Kong and a master’s degree in integrated science at the Philippine Normal University. Lastly, his research interests are STEM education, ESD, environmental science and education, and green technology.

Christopher Punzalan https://ronininstitute.org/author/christopher-punzalan/ Reshaping environmental education towards ecosystem restoration in the new normal

This post is a perspective of the author, and does not necessarily reflect the views of the Ronin Institute.

Privacy Overview

IMAGES

Bildung völlig neu denken
Changing Education Paradigms
Changing Education Paradigms
Changing Education Paradigms
Changing Education Paradigms
(1) Changing Education Paradigms

VIDEO

Changing Education Paradigms with Chinese Narration
Changing Paradigms: Moving Towards The New Era of Education
Divergentno razmišljanje
Joe Dispenza
RSA Animate
Changer l'Education

COMMENTS

Sir Ken Robinson: Changing education paradigms
Watch next. In this talk from RSA Animate, Sir Ken Robinson lays out the link between 3 troubling trends: rising drop-out rates, schools' dwindling stake in the arts, and ADHD. An important, timely talk for parents and teachers.
RSA ANIMATE: Changing Education Paradigms
This RSA Animate was adapted from a talk given at the RSA by Sir Ken Robinson, world-renowned education and creativity expert and recipient of the RSA's Benj...
Changing Education Paradigms
Shifting the Education Paradigm. We need to do the following to shift the industrial-capitalist education paradigm: Firstly, destroy the myth that there is a divide between academic and non academic subjects, and between the abstract and the theoretical. Secondly, recognize that most great learning takes place in groups - collaboration is the ...
Q&A With Sir Ken Robinson (Opinion)
EW: In your "Changing Education Paradigms" animation, you note that public education was based on the Industrial Revolution and the Enlightenment. This system, you said, has created chaos for ...
The next decade of education transformation: 5 reports to ...
The authors argue that there are at least four distinct education change approaches inspired by systems thinking: 1) standards-based accountability, 2) instructional sub-system, 3) teaching guild ...
The turning point: Why we must transform education now
Transforming education requires a significant increase in investment in quality education, a strong foundation in comprehensive early childhood development and education, and must be underpinned by strong political commitment, sound planning, and a robust evidence base. Learning and skills for life, work and sustainable development.
Transforming education systems: Why, what, and how
How can education system transformation advance in your country or jurisdiction? We argue that three steps are crucial: Purpose (developing a broadly shared vision and purpose), Pedagogy ...
Education reform and change driven by digital technology: a
Technology is a key factor in enabling education to transform and upgrade, and the context of the times is an important driving force in promoting the adoption of new technologies in the education ...
PDF A transformational vision for education in the US.
To contextualize the transformation of education, we see a paradigm shift—from the Industrial Age's school-centric paradigm to a new learner-centered, network-era paradigm. The learner- centered paradigm for learning functions like a pair of lenses that offers a new way to look at, think about, talk about, and act on education.
RSA Animate
October 20, 2010. | In Education. | By sirkenrobinson. Last year I was honoured to be awarded the Benjamin Franklin Medal by the Royal Society of Arts in London. Accepting the Award I gave a talk on Changing Paradigms in Education. The RSA has produced a wonderful animated version of highlights of the talk. Here it is: The full talk was about ...
PDF Changing Paradigms for Education
Commission are exploring emerging and anticipated changes in the paradigms that will in turn change the goals and processes of education. Among these emerging paradigms are the following: Learners as knowledge managers and knowledge producers: We are beginning to see a shift from thinking about education as concerned with "filling buckets
Pedagogies of the futures: Shifting the educational paradigms
Focusing on an educational paradigm rooted in critical pedagogy, the socratic method, futures studies, and peace education, this essay takes the position that classrooms of the future should be transformed into safe harbors where students are afforded the opportunity to explore, deconstruct and share knowledge of themselves, their experiences, and the world in which they live. Drawing upon ...
Re-envisioning paradigms of education: towards awareness ...
In this article we introduce a synthesis of education "paradigms," adapted from a multi-disciplinary body of literature and tailored to health professions education (HPE). Each paradigm involves a particular perspective on the purpose of education, the nature of knowledge, what knowledge is valued and included in the curriculum, what it means to learn and how learning is assessed, and the ...
Sir Ken Robinson on Creativity and Changing Educational Paradigms
Here's their animated adaptation of Sir Ken Robinson's talk about changing educational paradigms, based on one of the best TED talks of all time, in which Sir Ken makes a compelling case for how schools are killing creativity: We have a system of education that is modeled on the interest of industrialism and in the image of it.
Ken Robinson: Changing education paradigms
Ken Robinson: Changing education paradigms. Ken Robinson's observations of intersections between education and psychology come delivered through some delightful animations. He peers into three of the most disconcerting elements of the school system — an increase in ADD and ADHD diagnoses, escalating drop-out rates and poorly-funded art ...
Changing Education Paradigms
Changing Education Paradigms - Ken Robinson Sir Ken Robinson makes an entertaining and profoundly moving case for creating an education system that nurtures (rather than undermines) creativity. This animation was adapted from a talk given at the RSA by Sir Ken Robinson, world-renowned education and creativity expert and recipient of the RSA's ...
The Changing Paradigm Of Education
The Changing Paradigm of Education: A review of Ken Robinson's thoughts on schooling. By Seamus O'Keeffe. Changing Education Paradigms is a narrative from Sir Ken Robinson that provides an inspirational insight and overview of the current worldwide education structure, the effects that it is having on our school kids and society, and an ...
Changing Education Paradigms
Theme tag: Education, Communication, technology and media Culture, inter-culture dialogue This lecture by sir Ken Robinson discusses education. He gives examples of how the future of education might have to change due to the reason that the future of education might look very different than today's and yesterdays education.
Women's Education: Moving from Utility to Intellectual Freedom
Challenging education paradigms Women's empowerment is a familiar rallying cry, often underscored by the saying, "Educate a woman, educate a generation." However, this perspective subtly upholds traditional, patriarchal values by viewing women's empowerment through the lens of societal benefits only, such as how it will educate the next ...
Sir Ken Robinson: Changing education paradigms
In this talk from RSA Animate, Sir Ken Robinson lays out the link between 3 troubling trends: rising drop-out rates, schools' dwindling stake in the arts, and ADHD. An important, timely talk for parents and teachers.
PDF Analyzing Paradigms Used in Education and Schooling
applied to the practice of education in all of its forms (Fordam, 1993). Individuals have paradigms that cover many aspects of life such as how a relationship should work or how to be successful in one's career. One of the most important influences on paradigms is one's worldview, a set of constructed perceptions and ideas about reality.
8 Steps to Revolutionize Education (Opinion)
Michael Fullan, professor emeritus, is a former dean of the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education/University of Toronto and the global director of leadership for New Pedagogies for Deep ...
Changing Education Paradigms: Educator's Views and Perspectives
Based on Ken Robinson's TED Talk on Changing Education Paradigms, education strives to concentrate on the economic and cultural well-being of the current educational system that enlightens the issues and problems needed to be overcome by the modern teachers and learners. These two factors can be considered as a basement to support the dynamic ...
Navigating The Future: EdTech Investment And The New Learning Paradigm
For example, Discovery Education recently acquired Dreambox Learning, an intelligent adaptive learning platform that dynamically adjusts to the learner's interactions and proficiency in math.
Changing Education Paradigms
Based on the video presentation of Changing Education Paradigms, education strives to concentrate on the economic and cultural well-being of the current educational system that enlightens the issues and problems needed to overcome by the modern teachers and learners. These two factors can be considered as a basement to support the dynamic ...

Changing Education Paradigms

Current Education systems are not fit for the future

The education system is rooted in an industrial paradigm

We medicate our kids to get them through education

The education system kills creativity

Shifting the Education Paradigm

Relevance to A-Level Sociology

Share this:

One thought on “Changing Education Paradigms”

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Discover more from ReviseSociology

The turning point: Why we must transform education now

Why do we need to transform education?

What are the key areas that need to be transformed?

What is the Transforming Education Summit?

Related items

More on this subject

Other recent news

Transforming education systems: Why, what, and how

Subscribe to the Center for Universal Education Bulletin

Education reform and change driven by digital technology: a bibliometric study from a global perspective

Similar content being viewed by others

Determinants of behaviour and their efficacy as targets of behavioural change interventions

Entropy, irreversibility and inference at the foundations of statistical physics

Impact of artificial intelligence on human loss in decision making, laziness and safety in education

Literature review

Methodology and materials

Data retrieval

Literature screening

Data standardization

Performance analysis (RQ1)

Time trend of the publications

Analysis of authors

Analysis of countries/regions and organization

Analysis of journals

Temporal keyword analysis: thematic evolution (RQ2)

2000.1–2005.12: germination period

2006.1–2011.12: initial development period

2012.1–2017.12: critical exploration period

2018.1–2022.12: accelerated transformation period

Hotspot evolution analysis (RQ3)

Discussion on performance analysis (RQ1)

Discussion on authorship productivity in digital technology education research

Discussion on country/region-level productivity and collaboration

Discussion on institutional-level contributions to digital technology education

Discussion on journal publication analysis

Discussion on the evolutionary trends (RQ2)

Discussion on the study of research hotspots (RQ3)

Interdisciplinary integration and pedagogical transformation

Digital literacy and skills acquisition

Educational digital transformation

Engagement and participation

Professional development and teacher readiness

Pandemic as a catalyst

Ethical and societal considerations

Innovation and emerging technologies

Conclusions and future research

Limitation and future research

Data availability

Acknowledgements

Author information

Contributions

Corresponding author

Ethics declarations

Informed consent

Competing interests

Additional information

Supplementary information

About this article

Share this article

This article is cited by

Quick links

Sir Ken Robinson

RSA Animate - Changing Education Paradigms

Privacy Preference Center

Harness the Power of Your Creativity

Pedagogies of the futures: Shifting the educational paradigms

Education as the key

The way forward

“Oh Captain, my Captain”