National curricula need to change drastically to comply with the competences needed for the 21 st century. In this paper eight frameworks describing 21 st century competences were analysed. A comprehensive search for information about 21 st century competences was conducted across the official websites of the selected frameworks, resulting in 32 documents that were analysed in detail. Travers and Westbury's framework of curriculum representations was used to determine horizontal and vertical consistency between the frameworks. The frameworks were compared on their underlying rationales and goals, their definition of 21 st century competences, and the recommended strategies for the implementation and assessment of these skills in educational practice. In addition three international studies were examined to analyse how various countries (EU member states, OECD countries) and schools (SITES studies) deal (or not) with 21 st century competences. The findings indicate a large extent of alignment between the frameworks about what 21 st century competences are and why they are important (horizontal consistency), but intentions and practice seemed still far apart, indicating lack of vertical consistency. The implications of the implementation of 21 st century competences in national curriculum policies are discussed and recommendations are provided.
Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) has been introduced as a conceptual framework for the knowledge base teachers need to effectively teach with technology. The framework stems from the notion that technology integration in a specific educational context benefits from a careful alignment of content, pedagogy and the potential of technology, and that teachers who want to integrate technology in their teaching practice therefore need to be competent in all three domains. This study is a systematic literature review about TPACK of 55 peer‐reviewed journal articles (and one book chapter), published between 2005 and 2011. The purpose of the review was to investigate the theoretical basis and the practical use of TPACK. Findings showed different understandings of TPACK and of technological knowledge. Implications of these different views impacted the way TPACK was measured. Notions about TPACK in subject domains were hardly found in the studies selected for this review. Teacher knowledge (TPACK) and beliefs about pedagogy and technology are intertwined. Both determine whether a teacher decides to teach with technology. Active involvement in (re)design and enactment of technology‐enhanced lessons was found as a promising strategy for the development of TPACK in (student‐)teachers. Future directions for research are discussed.
The overall aims of this study are to explore (1) how beginning teachers integrate technology in their practice and (2) the connections between teachers' technology uses and their pre-service education programmes. Data of this follow-up study were collected through in-depth interviews with beginning teachers. The results reveal that all beginning teachers used a wide range of technological applications, mainly for structured learning approaches, while few created opportunities for student-centred technology use. Further, pre-service learning experiences that impact graduate teachers' technology use are identified. While teacher educators modelling technology use are an important motivator for beginning teachers to use technology in their own teaching, field experiences seem to be the most critical factor influencing their current practice. Based on the results of this study, recommendations about how to prepare and support preservice and beginning teachers for technology integration are discussed.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.