No abstract

This article focuses on challenges associated with the use of technology foresight for developing long-term strategies for innovative uses of ICT in education with an emphasis on the role of creativity. The outcomes of two international foresight programmes on the future of education are critically examined. The findings demonstrate the need to address programme participants' capacity to engage in systematic futures thinking and to emphasise creative aspects of constructing shared visions of the future.

Purpose The purpose of this study was to determine in what ways the competence frameworks analyzed converge or diverge and whether they are similar enough to be considered equivalent. Design/methodology/approach This study is based on a comparative analysis of competence frameworks describing sustainability education and foresight and futures education. Findings This study finds that sustainability education and futures and foresight education differ in significant ways in terms of expected outcomes as described by competence frameworks. The two educational fields cannot be considered equivalent. Rather, we find that they are complementary. Research limitations/implications This study is based on an analysis of competence frameworks that have been published in peer-reviewed publications. They do not necessarily reflect what is actually practiced in educational environments. Also, competence frameworks may be in circulation that have not been described in scholarly publications and are therefore not included in this study. Practical implications The results of this study can be helpful for further refining and developing both sustainability education and futures and foresight education by clarifying the different roles that they play in promoting the skills needed to address long-term challenges in uncertain futures. Social implications The rapid rise in prominence of sustainability education, in particular, but also foresight and futures education, is indicative of current concerns about the future of our planet and the beings that inhabit it. There is a sense that a key role of education should be to contribute to a pursuit of positive futures for all. By clarifying how current educational practices address this need, this study contributes to the overall goal of education. Originality/value Sustainability education and foresight and futures education have been regarded as being at least similar enough that implementing one may preclude the necessity for the other. This study shows that there are significant differences between the two as they have been defined in published competence frameworks. In particular, it shows that sustainability education emphasizes the use of anticipatory intelligence for strategic planning, while foresight and futures education emphasize the generation of anticipatory intelligence. The two fields are found to be complementary in that they address different, but equally necessary, skills needed to address long-term challenges.

The future of learning: rethinking learning in societal transformations Education futures are increasingly prominent in global policy discourse. We might even say that the future is showing signs of becoming what Donald Scho ¨n famously referred to as an "idea in good currency", i.e. "ideas powerful for the formation of public policy" (and, consequently, likely to attract funding) (Scho ¨n, 1970). The terminology used varies. There has been much discussion about an impending, albeit somewhat ill-defined, fourth industrial revolution, highlighting the need to re-evaluate what sorts of jobs today's students will have in the future. International organisations such as OECD, UNESCO and the European Commission have implemented numerous initiatives focusing on foresight and scenario construction in education to promote forward-looking approaches in educational policymaking. EDUCAUSE continues to publish the Horizon Reports started by the New Media Consortium highlighting trends and emerging technologies that can be expected to impact education in coming years. Whatever terminology is used, there is clearly something afoot. The future of education is becoming an unavoidable component of discussions about educational policymaking and planning. Despite all of the chatter, jargon and tomes of published policy recommendations, one group still struggles to find their role in shaping the education futures envisioned by the global policy community. These are the practitioners, i.e. the teachers, administrators and other people working in educational institutions and organisations. Reports such as UNESCO's (2021) recent Reimagining our futures together: A new social contract for education, that, for example, includes an entire chapter on "Pedagogies of cooperation and solidarity" (p. 49), do not make clear how educators are expected to implement the policies suggested there. The authors make a strong case for the need to adopt new pedagogical approaches, which is unlikely to be widely disputed by people working in education. However, they do not venture into the more challenging topic of what educators need to change to accommodate these new approaches. This lack of practical direction, i.e. what educators should do to support and promote forward-looking policies, is problematic because practitioners need to be included as partners in affecting change if policymakers' ambitions are to be realised.Educational systems are complex systems that are notoriously difficult to change (Jonasson, 2018). Their complexity stems both from their structure, which includes transnational, national, regional and organisational components, and their intended purposes, including furthering political agendas, preserving historical and cultural knowledge and preparing societies for uncertain futures. For meaningful change to occur all of these components need to align so that the many parties involved can agree on common goals, and the means to achieve them. While this complexity affects any agendas for change, it has proven particularly challengin...