Explore the vast range of titles available.

This article presents a conceptual model of cross-cultural alignments in education in the digital era. The intention was to explore and respond to urgent questions regarding learners and the learning environments in today’s networked society. The model explores the enabling or constraining influences of educational systems, digital environments, learners, and educators on other learners and is based on the concept of social justice. The skills and competencies required for efficient learner development in a digital environment include digital competence, collaboration skills, intercultural competence, and lifelong learning skills. The interrelationship of these components and their influence on learners’ skills and competencies are discussed through the lens of cross-cultural alignment by examining three intercultural projects worldwide. The authors recommend that educational systems provide educational institutions with a high-quality infrastructure as well as to support educators and learners in the development of digital skills. Future research may examine the model’s components and their interrelationships so that it may serve researchers and practitioners as a basis for the design of future intercultural projects.

This paper examines the alignment of education with the needs for knowledge creation in the digital age using the Knowledge Building model and Knowledge Forum® technology. Knowledge Building is akin to knowledge creation as practiced in research laboratories and other frontier-advancing organizations, with added focus on value to the individual, community, and society. Knowledge Forum has evolved with theory and pedagogy over the years, and makes knowledge-creation processes available to school-aged students. Despite reform efforts, misalignments for educational innovation continue to prevail in schooling, and changes often create more disruptions. Without a coherent framework and sustained progressive change, innovations may fail to make their way into policy and practice, creating an endless catching-up game and fragmentation at different levels. This paper draws from the Knowledge Building model and research to discuss alignments for knowledge creation in seven areas: (1) views of knowledge; (2) 21st-century educational competencies; (3) education and equity; (4) pedagogy and technology integration; (5) assessment, learning and collaboration; (6) teacher learning; and (7) student learning outcomes. Through decades of sustained design implementation research, using a systemic approach involving school-university-government alliances and globally distributed hubs of innovation, Knowledge Building teams have engaged in the reconstruction of educational practices to establish self-improving systems for continual alignments in knowledge creation. The mobilization of educational stakeholders worldwide, such as the EduSummIT, provides opportunities for bridging research and practice and educational improvements. Implications of Knowledge Building for developing self-improving systems and communities that leverage technology for realigning education in knowledge creation are discussed.

Chinese education is controversial: it is not only lauded for Chinese students' high test achievements but also criticized for curbing students' deep learning and development into well-rounded individuals. In the current paper, we propose that self-determination theory (SDT) serves as a useful framework for anatomizing Chinese educational ecology, especially understanding the fundamental developmental costs behind Chinese students' high test scores. In the first part, we provide an up-to-date overview of SDT, which proposes that a growthoriented motivation fueled by basic psychological needs underlies human development; hence, the role of education is to provide environmental support for these needs. After reviewing research evidence, we conclude that SDT serves as a valid theoretical framework for analyzing Chinese education. In the second part, we apply the lens of SDT to better understand the motivational dynamics that prevail in Chinese education. In doing so, we first primarily focus on the distal institutional level, thereby examining in detail how the high-stakes testing system headed by Gaokao fails to support—and may even thwart—basic psychological needs; we also address counterarguments favoring Gaokao, such as heightened involvement and alignment. We then scrutinize the pros and cons at the proximal level of the student environment— i.e., teachers and parents. Finally, we discuss existing reform attempts, which seemingly have very limited effectiveness. We propose that awareness of the problem and more holistic change are needed to realize more effective and sustainable change in Chinese education.

Science, engineering, and technology permeate nearly every facet of modern life and hold the key to solving many of humanity's most pressing current and future challenges. The United States' position in the global economy is declining, in part because U.S. workers lack fundamental knowledge in these fields. To address the critical issues of U.S. competitiveness and to better prepare the workforce, A Framework for K-12 Science Education proposes a new approach to K-12 science education that will capture students' interest and provide them with the necessary foundational knowledge in the field. A Framework for K-12 Science Education outlines a broad set of expectations for students in science and engineering in grades K-12. These expectations will inform the development of new standards for K-12 science education and, subsequently, revisions to curriculum, instruction, assessment, and professional development for educators. This book identifies three dimensions that convey the core ideas and practices around which science and engineering education in these grades should be built. These three dimensions are: crosscutting concepts that unify the study of science through their common application across science and engineering; scientific and engineering practices; and disciplinary core ideas in the physical sciences, life sciences, and earth and space sciences and for engineering, technology, and the applications of science. The overarching goal is for all high school graduates to have sufficient knowledge of science and engineering to engage in public discussions on science-related issues, be careful consumers of scientific and technical information, and enter the careers of their choice. A Framework for K-12 Science Education is the first step in a process that can inform state-level decisions and achieve a research-grounded basis for improving science instruction and learning across the country. The book will guide standards developers, teachers, curriculum designers, assessment developers, state and district science administrators, and educators who teach science in informal environments.

In this article, we present a curricular perspective that can be used to understand students’ focus on assessment in higher education. We propose that the degree of alignment between the objectives and assessment of the curriculum plays a crucial role in students’ motivation. In case of perfect alignment, all objectives have an equitable probability of being assessed. Thus, all learning contributes to performance equitably. Consequently, the motivation to perform and the motivation to learn should result in the same learning behaviour and performance. However, in reality, a certain degree of cognitive and operant misalignment of the assessment with the objectives is present. Hence, some objectives will not need to be mastered in order to pass certain assessments. Consequently, a distinction arises between assessed and unassessed learning, and only the assessed learning contributes to performance. Thus, the probability of performing well on assessments is higher when students focus their effort on the assessed learning only, instead of dividing their effort between the assessed and unassessed learning. Therefore, students who are motivated to perform have a motivation that fits in a misaligned curriculum. The article concludes with implications of this curricular fit perspective for assessment practices, as well as for motivational research.

This article provides an in-depth look at how K-12 students should be introduced to Machine Learning and the knowledge and skills they will develop as a result. We begin with an overview of the AI4K12 Initiative, which is developing national guidelines for teaching AI in K-12, and briefly discuss each of the “Five Big Ideas in AI” that serve as the organizing framework for the guidelines. We then discuss the general format and structure of the guidelines and grade band progression charts and provide a theoretical framework that highlights the developmental appropriateness of the knowledge and skills we want to impart to students and the learning experiences we expect them to engage in. Development of the guidelines is informed by best practices from Learning Sciences and CS Education research, and by the need for alignment with CSTA’s K-12 Computer Science Standards, Common Core standards, and Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS). The remainder of the article provides an in-depth exploration of the AI4K12 Big Idea 3 (Learning) grade band progression chart to unpack the concepts we expect students to master at each grade band. We present examples to illustrate the progressions from two perspectives: horizontal (across grade bands) and vertical (across concepts for a given grade band). Finally, we discuss how these guidelines can be used to create learning experiences that make connections across the Five Big Ideas, and free online tools that facilitate these experiences.

Research has identified a number of problems limiting the implementation of content standards in the classroom. Curriculum materials may be among the most important influences on teachers' instruction. As new standards roll out, there is skepticism about the alignment of \"Common Core–aligned\" curriculum materials to the standards. This analysis is the first to investigate claims of alignment in the context of fourth-grade mathematics using the only widely used alignment tool capable of estimating the alignment of curriculum materials with the standards. The results indicate substantial areas of misalignment; in particular, the textbooks studied systematically overemphasize procedures and memorization relative to the standards, among other weaknesses. The findings challenge publishers' alignment claims and motivate further research on curriculum alignment.

This case study of large-class teaching at a UK university focuses on the place of large-scale lectures in academics’ approaches to teaching, their use by students in their studies, and their relationship to institutional quality assurance policies. The case is a second-year module comprised of 180 students, and it includes two-hour lectures as the primary mode of teaching. The data is drawn from a range of sources including observations, interviews, focus groups, institutional documentation, and a student survey. Observations revealed largely transmissive lectures with little student interaction. The analytic framework of constructive alignment and outcome-based education is used to examine the promoted educational values and the practice experienced by students. The results are further explored in relation to two texts celebrating 50 years since publication: Donald Bligh’s What’s the Use of Lectures and Benson Snyder’s The Hidden Curriculum, Both highlight the dissonance of espoused approaches to teaching, and the realities of large-class environments. While the institutional literature foregrounds student-centred, ‘active learning’ approaches, the teacher-centred practice observed would have been very familiar to Bligh and Snyder; the principles of constructive alignment were visible only at the policy level. The implicit reward mechanisms of the hidden curriculum ensure that the majority of students succeed and are satisfied with the educational offering. The students who attended the lectures appeared to enjoy them and indicated that the primary benefits are the structure offered by live lectures and the support of the peer networks which develop as a result of attendance.

In response to policy initiatives calling for the implementation of evidence-based classroom practice, instructional coaches are frequently utilized as providers of professional development (PD). Despite the demand for instructional coaches, there is little empirical evidence that coaching improves teacher practice. We address this limitation by conceptualizing instructional coaching within a research-based framework for PD consisting of 5 key features synthesized from cross-sectional studies, longitudinal studies, and literature reviews of experimental and quasi-experimental studies: content focus, active learning, sustained duration, coherence, and collective participation. When examining understanding instructional coaching through the lens of the 5 empirically predictive elements of effective PD, the model presents itself as a powerful tool for improving teacher knowledge, skills, and practice. It is imperative that future researchers define the next set of questions to further refine the understanding of coaching and how it can and should be executed to leverage professional learning.

Due to a rapidly transforming world, design education needs to adjust itself. To do so, it is essential to understand curriculum gaps in the discipline. This systematic review (n = 95) reports on these gaps and the future readiness of design curricula. The search strategy consisted of both a database search, and discipline-specific journal search in which generalised results about current or future perspectives of design education were found. Structured around the constructive alignment framework, this research found that more 21st century learning objectives focusing on skills next to domain-specific knowledge need to be incorporated, and teaching and learning activities need to be more student-centred and better aligned to industry. Related to assessment, a considerable gap was found in literature on guidelines and means for formative assessment. Design education is not yet ready for the challenges ahead, therefore, the authors hope that design departments rethink their curricula and fill the specified gaps.