Components of Education 4.0 in 21st Century Skills Frameworks: Systematic Review
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Context of the Study
2.2. Education 4.0 in Industry 4.0
2.3. Learning Dimensions
- Knowledge dimension: refers to teaching topics that constitute the traditional and modern disciplines important to many jurisdictions and cultures. Teachers, students, and curriculum designers can find innumerable ways to highlight the core subject areas. This dimension considers digital literacy, synthesis, and integration of design thinking, ethical mindset, information literacy, socio-environmental literacy, empathy, and shared responsibility. It includes global literacy, information culture, systems thinking, environmental culture, and digital culture.
- Skills dimension: focuses on students developing skills through active roles in real-world situations that promote self-regulation, communication, and reflection, successfully transferring knowledge and learning to ever-changing situations. They are expected to develop creativity, critical thinking, communication, and collaboration competencies.
- Character dimension: refers to character education to build the foundation for lifelong learning, supporting successful relationships in the home, community, and workplace, and developing personal values and virtues for sustainable participation in the globalized world. The competencies in this dimension include mindfulness, curiosity, courage, resilience, ethics, and leadership.
- Meta-learning dimension: involves higher-level thinking processes, which control lower-level thinking and the internalization of a growth mindset. Learning-oriented students see mistakes as opportunities for growth and improvement, while performance-oriented learners see them as failures. This dimension features three verbalizations: verbalization of knowledge that is already verbal (such as remembering what happened in a story), verbalization of nonverbal knowledge (such as remembering how a Rubik’s cube was solved), and verbalization of the explanations of verbal or nonverbal knowledge.
2.4. Stakeholders in the Competency Frameworks of the 21st Century
2.5. Teaching and Learning Methods
2.6. Systematic Literature Review Method
- What were the articles’ objects of study?
- How many studies are in the Scopus and WoS databases over time and the dimension of learning targeted?
- What are the core Education 4.0 teaching and learning strategies applied in the study?
- Who are the stakeholders identified in the publications, and what core Education 4.0 competencies have been worked on in the frameworks?
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
|A1||Tiemann, R. and Annaggar, A. (2020). A framework for the theory-driven design of digital learning environments (FDDLEs) using the example of problem-solving in chemistry education. Interactive Learning Environments, 1–14.|
|A2||Priemer, B., Eilerts, K., Filler, A., Pinkwart, N., Rösken-Winter, B., Tiemann, R., and Zu Belzen, A. U. (2020). A framework to foster problem-solving in STEM and computing education. Research in Science & Technological Education, 38(1), 105–130.|
|A3||Niemi, H., Nevgi, A., and Aksit, F. (2016). Active learning promoting student teachers’ professional competencies in Finland and Turkey. European Journal of Teacher Education, 39(4), 471–490.|
|A4||Menekse, M., Purzer, S., and Heo, D. (2019). An investigation of verbal episodes that relate to individual and team performance in engineering student teams. International Journal of STEM Education, 6(1), 1–13.|
|A5||Portman, D. and Broido, M. (2019). Apprenticing future economists: Analyzing an ESP course through the lens of the new CEFR extended framework. Language Learning in Higher Education, 9(2), 395–413.|
|A6||Molerov, D., Zlatkin-Troitschanskaia, O., Nagel, M. T., Brückner, S., Schmidt, S., and Shavelson, R. J. (2020). Assessing University Students’ Critical Online Reasoning Ability: A Conceptual and Assessment Framework with Preliminary Evidence.|
|A7||Shavelson, R. J., Zlatkin-Troitschanskaia, O., Beck, K., Schmidt, S., and Marino, J. P. (2019). Assessment of university students’ critical thinking: Next-generation performance assessment. International Journal of Testing, 19(4), 337–362.|
|A8||Zgraggen, M. (2021). Blended learning model in a vocational educational training hospitality setting: from teachers’ perspectives. International Journal of Training Research, 1–27.|
|A9||Wright, N. and Wrigley, C. (2019). Broadening design-led education horizons: Conceptual insights and future research directions. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 29(1), 1–23.|
|A10||Mehrotra, S. and Mehrotra, V. S. (2018). Challenges Beyond Schooling: Innovative Models for Youth Skills Development in India. In Transitions to Post-School Life (pp. 13–34). Springer, Singapore.|
|A11||Gretter, S. and Yadav, A. (2016). Computational thinking and media & information literacy: An integrated approach to teaching twenty-first century skills. TechTrends, 60(5), 510–516.|
|A12||Yadav, A., Good, J., Voogt, J., and Fisser, P. (2017). Computational thinking as an emerging competence domain. In Competence-based vocational and professional education (pp. 1051–1067). Springer, Cham.|
|A13||Hoogland, K. and Tout, D. (2018). Computer-based assessment of mathematics into the twenty-first century: pressures and tensions. ZDM, 50(4), 675–686.|
|A14||Tan, L. (2016). Confucius: Philosopher of twenty-first century skills. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 48(12), 1233–1243.|
|A15||Hodge, C. J. (2018). Decolonizing Collections-Based Learning: Experiential Observation as an Interdisciplinary Framework for Object Study. Museum Anthropology, 41(2), 142–158.|
|A16||Hu, Y. and Spiro, R. J. (2021). Design for now, but with the future in mind: a “cognitive flexibility theory” perspective on online learning through the lens of MOOCs. Educational Technology Research and Development, 69(1), 373–378.|
|A17||Laru, J., Vuopala, E., Iwata, M., Pitkänen, K., Sanchez, I., Mäntymäki, A., … and Näykki, J. (2019). Designing seamless learning activities for school visitors in the context of Fab Lab Oulu. In Seamless Learning (pp. 153–169). Springer, Singapore.|
|A18||Moya, S. and Camacho, M. (2021). Developing a Framework for Mobile Learning Adoption and Sustainable Development. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 1–18.|
|A19||Eddles-Hirsch, K., Kennedy-Clark, S., and Francis, T. (2020). Developing creativity through authentic programming in the inclusive classroom. Education 3–13, 48(8), 909–918.|
|A20||Sullivan, K., Bray, A., and Tangney, B. (2020). Developing twenty-first century skills in out-of-school education: the Bridge21 Transition Year programme. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 1–17.|
|A21||Javed, M. S., Athar, M. R., and Saboor, A. (2019). Development of a twenty-first century skills scale for Agri varsities. Cogent Business & Management, 6(1), 1692485.|
|A22||Butler, D., Leahy, M., Hallissy, M., and Brown, M. (2017). Different strokes for different folks: Scaling a blended model of teacher professional learning. Interactive Technology and Smart Education.|
|A23||Niemi, H. and Multisilta, J. (2016). Digital storytelling promoting twenty-first century skills and student engagement. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 25(4), 451–468.|
|A24||Kusumoto, Y. (2018). Enhancing critical thinking through active learning. Language Learning in Higher Education, 8(1), 45–63.|
|A25||Kay, K., and Honey, M. (2006). Establishing the R&D agenda for twenty-first century learning. New Directions for Youth Development, (110), 63–80.|
|A26||Reichert, F., Zhang, D. J., Law, N. W., Wong, G. K., and de la Torre, J. (2020). Exploring the structure of digital literacy competence assessed using authentic software applications. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68(6), 2991–3013.|
|A27||Salleh, H. (2016). Facilitation for professional learning community conversations in Singapore. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 36(2), 285–300.|
|A28||Ahonen, A. K., and Kinnunen, P. (2015). How do students value the importance of twenty-first century skills? Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 59(4), 395–412.|
|A29||Arati, D., Todorova, A., and Merrett, R. (2011). Implementation and sustainability of a global ICT company’s programme to help teachers integrate technology into learning and teaching in Germany, France, and the UK. Research in Learning Technology, 19.|
|A30||Herodotou, C., Sharples, M., Gaved, M., Kukulska-Hulme, A., Rienties, B., Scanlon, E., and Whitelock, D. (2019). Innovative pedagogies of the future: An evidence-based selection. In Frontiers in Education (Vol. 4, p. 113). Frontiers.|
|A31||Izzrech, K., Del Giudice, M., and Della Peruta, M. R. (2013). Investigating entrepreneurship among Algerian youth: Is it a knowledge-intensive factory? Journal of the knowledge economy, 4(3), 319–329.|
|A32||Başaran, B. (2020). Investigating science and mathematics teacher candidate’s perceptions of TPACK-21 based on 21st century skills. Ilkogretim Online, 19(4).|
|A33||Gold, A. U., Oonk, D. J., Smith, L., Boykoff, M. T., Osnes, B., and Sullivan, S. B. (2015). A lens on climate change: Making climate meaningful through student-produced videos. Journal of Geography, 114(6), 235–246.|
|A34||Bronkhorst, H., Roorda, G., Suhre, C., and Goedhart, M. (2020). Logical reasoning in formal and everyday reasoning tasks. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 18(8), 1673–1694.|
|A35||Doorman, M., Bos, R., de Haan, D., Jonker, V., Mol, A., and Wijers, M. (2019). Making and implementing a mathematics day challenge as a makerspace for teams of students. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 17(1), 149–165.|
|A36||Häkkinen, P., Järvelä, S., Mäkitalo-Siegl, K., Ahonen, A., Näykki, P., and Valtonen, T. (2017). Preparing teacher-students for twenty-first century learning practices (PREP 21): a framework for enhancing collaborative problem-solving and strategic learning skills. Teachers and Teaching, 23(1), 25–41.|
|A37||Cherner, T. and Smith, D. (2017). Reconceptualizing TPACK to meet the needs of twenty-first century education. The New Educator, 13(4), 329–349.|
|A38||Kickbusch, S., Wright, N., Sternberg, J., and Dawes, L. (2020). Rethinking learning design: Reconceptualizing the role of the learning designer in pre-service teacher preparation through a design-led approach. International Journal of Design Education, 14(4), 29–45.|
|A39||Lee, C. S., and Kolodner, J. L. (2011). Scaffolding students’ development of creative design skills: A curriculum reference model. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 14(1), 3–15.|
|A40||Smyrnova-Trybulska, E., Morze, N., Kommers, P., Zuziak, W., and Gladun, M. (2017). Selected aspects and conditions of the use of robots in STEM education for young learners as viewed by teachers and students. Interactive Technology and Smart Education.|
|A41||Alden-Rivers, B. (2016). Social innovation education: Designing learning for an uncertain world. In Innovation and Entrepreneurship in Education. Emerald Group Publishing Limited.|
|A42||Kitchens, R. K., and Barker, M. E. (2016). Synthesizing pedagogies and engaging students: Creating blended eLearning strategies for library research and writing instruction. The Reference Librarian, 57(4), 323–335.|
|A43||Hannaway, D. M., and Steyn, M. G. (2017). Teachers’ experiences of technology-based teaching and learning in the Foundation Phase. Early Child Development and Care, 187(11), 1745–1759.|
|A44||Blau, I., Peled, Y., and Nusan, A. (2016). Technological, pedagogical and content knowledge in one-to-one classroom: teachers developing “digital wisdom”. Interactive Learning Environments, 24(6), 1215–1230.|
|A45||Weninger, C. (2017). The “vernacularization” of global education policy: media and digital literacy as twenty-first century skills in Singapore. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 37(4), 500–516.|
|A46||Lin, T. B., Mokhtar, I. A., and Wang, L. Y. (2015). The construct of media and information literacy in Singapore education system: global trends and local policies. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 35(4), 423–437.|
|A47||Viinikka, K.-, and Ubani, M. (2019). The expectations of Finnish RE student teachers of their professional development in their academic studies in the light of twenty-first century skills. Journal of Beliefs & Values, 40(4), 447–463.|
|A48||Gupta, R. (2021). The Role of Pedagogy in Developing Life Skills. Margin: The Journal of Applied Economic Research, 15(1), 50–72.|
|A49||Valtonen, T., Sointu, E., Kukkonen, J., Kontkanen, S., Lambert, M. C., and Mäkitalo-Siegl, K. (2017). TPACK updated to measure pre-service teachers’ twenty-first century skills. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 33(3).|
|A50||Snape, P., and Fox-Turnbull, W. (2011). Twenty-first century learning and technology education nexus. Problems of Education in the 21st Century, 34, 149.|
|A51||Wilson, J. I. (2006). Twenty-first century learning for teachers: helping educators bring new skills into the classroom. New Directions for Youth Development, (110), 149–154. Doi: 10.1002/yd.175|
|A52||Engerman, J. A., Carr-Chellman, A. A., and MacAllan, M. (2019). Understanding learning in video games: A phenomenological approach to unpacking boy cultures in virtual worlds. Education and Information Technologies, 24(6), 3311–3327.|
|A53||Sahlin, J. S., Tsertsidis, A., and Islam, M. S. (2017). Usages and impacts of the integration of information and communication technologies (ICTs) in elementary classrooms: a case study of Swedish municipality schools. Interactive Learning Environments, 25(5), 561–579.|
|A54||Lipiäinen, T., Ubani, M., Viinikka, K., and Kallioniemi, A. (2020). What does “new learning” require from religious education teachers? A study of Finnish RE teachers’ perceptions. Journal of Religious Education, 68(2), 213–231.|
|A55||Knox, A. (2006). Why American business demands twenty-first century learning: A company perspective. New Directions for Youth Development, (110), 31–7.|
|A56||Bruett, K. (2006). Why American business demands twenty-first century skills: an industry perspective. New directions for youth development, (110), 25–30.|
- UN. The Sustainable Development Goals Report. 2020. Available online: https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/report/2020/ (accessed on 5 August 2021).
- McLennan, M. The Global Risks Report. 2021 16th Edition. Available online: http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_The_Global_Risks_Report_2021.pdf (accessed on 5 August 2021).
- Partnership for 21st Century Skills. Framework for 21st Century Learning. 2019. Available online: https://bit.ly/3FS9JBC (accessed on 2 April 2021).
- Tecnologico de Monterrey. Razonamiento para la Complejidad. In Tecnologico de Monterrey, 7 Competencias con las que el Tec Busca Preparar a sus Estudiantes; 2019; Available online: https://bit.ly/3AsM6NL (accessed on 12 October 2021).
- Morin, E.; Pakman, M. Introducción al Pensamiento Complejo; Gedisa: Barcelona, Spain, 2011; ISBN 978-84-7432-518-8. [Google Scholar]
- Ramírez-Montoya, M.S.; Álvarez-Icaza, I.; Sanabria-Zepeda, J.C.; López-Caudana, E.O.; Alonso, P.E.; Miranda, J. Scaling Complex Thinking for Everyone through Open Science: A Conceptual Methodological Framework. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Technological Ecosystems for Enhancing Multiculturality TEEM21, Barcelona, Spain, 26–29 October 2021; University of Barcelona: Barcelona, Spain, 2021; pp. 806–811. [Google Scholar]
- Chaka, C. Skills, Competencies and Literacies Attributed to 4IR/Industry 4.0: Scoping Review. IFLA J. 2020, 46, 369–399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Álamo Venegas, J.J.; Alonso Díaz, L.; Yuste Tosina, R.; López Ramos, V.M. La Dimensión Educativa de la robótica: Del Desarrollo del Pensamiento al Pensamiento Computacional en el aula. Campo Abierto. Rev. de Educ. 2021, 40, 2. Available online: https://bit.ly/3jbxUkG (accessed on 15 September 2021).
- van Laar, E.; van Deursen, A.J.A.M.; van Dijk, J.A.G.M.; de Haan, J. The Relation between 21st-Century Skills and Digital Skills: A Systematic Literature Review. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2017, 72, 577–588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Noh, S.C.; Karim, A.M.A. Design Thinking Mindset to Enhance Education 4.0 Competitiveness in Malaysia. IJERE 2021, 10, 494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- González-Salamanca, J.C.; Agudelo, O.L.; Salinas, J. Key Competencies, Education for Sustainable Development and Strategies for the Development of 21st Century Skills. A Systematic Literature Review. Sustainability 2020, 12, 10366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gleason, N.W. (Ed.) Higher Education in the Era of the Fourth Industrial Revolution; Springer: Singapore, 2018; ISBN 9789811301933. Available online: https://library.oapen.org/handle/20.500.12657/23279 (accessed on 16 September 2021).
- Hong, C.; Ma, W.W.K. (Eds.) Introduction: Education 4.0: Applied Degree Education and the Future of Work. In Applied Degree Education and the Future of Work; Lecture Notes in Educational Technology; Springer: Singapore, 2020; pp. 1–13. ISBN 9789811531415. [Google Scholar]
- PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC). Will Robots Really Steal Our Jobs? An International Analysis of the Potential Long-Term Impact of Automation 2018. Available online: https://www.pwc.co.uk/economic-services/assets/international-impact-of-automation-feb-2018.pdf (accessed on 25 October 2021).
- Bonfield, C.A.; Salter, M.; Longmuir, A.; Benson, M.; Adachi, C. Transformation or Evolution? Education 4.0, Teaching and Learning in the Digital Age. High. Educ. Pedagog. 2020, 5, 223–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Karlos de Sousa Oliveira, K.; André Cavalcante de Souza, R. Habilitadores Da Transformação Digital Em Direção à Educação 4.0. Renote 2020, 18, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ciolacu, M.; Tehrani, A.F.; Beer, R.; Popp, H. Education 4.0—Fostering Student’s Performance with Machine Learning Methods. In Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE 23rd International Symposium for Design and Technology in Electronic Packaging (SIITME), Constanta, Romania, 26–29 October 2017; pp. 438–443. [Google Scholar]
- Miranda, J.; Navarrete, C.; Noguez, J.; Molina-Espinosa, J.-M.; Ramírez-Montoya, M.-S.; Navarro-Tuch, S.A.; Bustamante-Bello, M.-R.; Rosas-Fernández, J.-B.; Molina, A. The Core Components of Education 4.0 in Higher Education: Three Case Studies in Engineering Education. Comput. Electr. Eng. 2021, 93, 107278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- García Vaquero, M.; Sánchez-Bayón, A.; Lominchar, J. European Green Deal and Recovery Plan: Green Jobs, Skills and Wellbeing Economics in Spain. Energies 2021, 14, 4145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alles, M.A. Desarrollo del Talento Humano Basado en Competencias; Ediciones Granica SA: Buenos Aires, Argentina, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Duque Ceballos, J.L.; García Solarte, M.; Hurtado Ayala, A. Influencia de la inteligencia emocional sobre las competencias laborales: Un estudio empírico con empleados del nivel administrativo. Estud. Gerenc. 2017, 33, 250–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- OCDE. The Future of Education and Skills. Education 2030. 2018. Available online: http://go.uv.es/1fDpQnn (accessed on 12 August 2021).
- Fadel, C.; Bialik, M.; Trilling, B.; Schleicher, A. Four-Dimensional Education: The Competencies Learners Need to Succeed; Center for Curriculum Redesign: Boston, MA, USA, 2015; ISBN 978-1-5186-4256-2. [Google Scholar]
- Cedefop. Annual Report 2014; Cedefop Information Series; Publications Office of the European Union: Luxembourg, 2015; Available online: https://bit.ly/3AOReKz (accessed on 1 September 2021).
- Himmetoglu, B.; Aydug, D.; Bayrak, C. Education 4.0: Defining the teacher, the student, and the school manager aspects of the revolution. Turk. Online J. Distance Educ. 2020, 21, 12–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aziz Hussin, A. Education 4.0 Made Simple: Ideas For Teaching. IJELS 2018, 6, 92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Salmon, G. May 4 Be with You: Creating Education 4.0. J. Learn. Dev. 2019, 6, 95–115. Available online: https://bit.ly/3aKxXiX (accessed on 10 September 2021).
- Shirazi, F.; Hajli, N. IT-Enabled Sustainable Innovation and the Global Digital Divides. Sustainability 2021, 13, 9711. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ferrari, A. DIGCOMP: A Framework for Developing and Understanding Digital Competence in Europe. 2013. Available online: https://tinyurl.com/yc9at8t6 (accessed on 5 April 2021).
- Bacigalupo, M. Entrepreneurship as a competence. In World Encyclopedia of Entrepreneurship; Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham, UK, 2021. [Google Scholar]
- Rayna, T.; Striukova, L. Fostering Skills for the 21st Century: The Role of Fab Labs and Makerspaces. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2021, 164, 120391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vivas-Fernandez, L.; Sáez-López, J.M. Integración de la robótica educativa en Educación Primaria. Rev. Latinoam. De Tecnol. Educ.-RELATEC 2019, 18, 107–129. [Google Scholar]
- Wing, J.M. Computational thinking. Commun. ACM 2006, 49, 33–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ramírez-Montoya, M.S. Modelos y Estrategias de Enseñanza para Ambientes Innovadores; Editorial Digital: Monterrey, México, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Pradas Montilla, S. La Neurotecnología Educativa. Claves Del Uso de La Tecnología En El Proceso de Aprendizaje. ReiDoCrea Rev. Electrónica De Investig. Docencia Creat. 2017, 6, 40–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Deja, M.; Rak, D.; Bell, B. Digital Transformation Readiness: Perspectives on Academia and Library Outcomes in Information Literacy. J. Acad. Librariansh. 2021, 47, 102403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Seufert, C.; Oberdörfer, S.; Roth, A.; Grafe, S.; Lugrin, J.-L.; Latoschik, M.E. Classroom Management Competency Enhancement for Student Teachers Using a Fully Immersive Virtual Classroom. Comput. Educ. 2022, 179, 104410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Silva-Díaz, F.; Carrillo-Rosúa, J.; Fernández-Plaza, J.A. Uso de Tecnologías Inmersivas y Su Impacto En Las Actitudes Científico-Matemáticas Del Estudiantado de Educación Secundaria Obligatoria En Un Contexto En Riesgo de Exclusión Social. Educar 2021, 57, 119–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Santos, A.F.; Barber III, D.; Harris, M.; Haymore, J. What Can Universities Learn From Organizational Creative Space Design Research? A Look at Maker Spaces. JHETP 2021, 21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wong, C.; Shih, Y. Enhance STEM Education by Integrating Product Design with Computer-Aided Design Approaches. CADandA 2021, 19, 694–711. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- van den Hurk, A.; Meelissen, M.; van Langen, A. Interventions in Education to Prevent STEM Pipeline Leakage. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 2019, 41, 150–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Daher, W.; Awawdeh Shahbari, J. Design of STEM Activities: Experiences and Perceptions of Prospective Secondary School Teachers. Int. J. Emerg. Technol. Learn. 2020, 15, 112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Kayan-Fadlelmula, F.; Sellami, A.; Abdelkader, N.; Umer, S. A Systematic Review of STEM Education Research in the GCC Countries: Trends, Gaps and Barriers. Int. J. STEM Educ. 2022, 9, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brereton, P.; Kitchenham, B.A.; Budgen, D.; Turner, M.; Khalil, M. Lessons from Applying the Systematic Literature Review Process within the Software Engineering Domain. J. Syst. Softw. 2007, 80, 571–583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Higgins, J.P.; Green, S. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions 4.2.6. Cochrane Libr. 2006, 4, 49–55. [Google Scholar]
- Kitchenham, B. Procedures for Performing Systematic Reviews; Keele University: Keele, UK, 2004; Volume 33, pp. 1–26. Available online: https://bit.ly/2XnwE6y (accessed on 20 September 2021).
- Chambers, D.; Rodgers, M.; Golder, S.; Pepper, C.; Todd, D.; Woolacott, N. Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. 2009. Available online: https://bit.ly/3FSM9oe (accessed on 20 September 2021).
- García-Peñalvo, F.J. Mapeos Sistemáticos de Literatura, Revisiones Sistemáticas de Literatura y Benchmarking de Programas Formativos. 2017. Available online: http://repositorio.grial.eu/handle/grial/1056 (accessed on 20 September 2021).
- Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.; Brennan, S.E.; et al. The PRISMA 2020 Statement: An Updated Guideline for Reporting Systematic Reviews. BMJ 2021, 372, n160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sifaki, E.; Petousi, V. Contextualising Harm in the Framework of Research Misconduct. Findings from Discourse Analysis of Scientific Publications. IJSD 2020, 23, 149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
|Competencies||Transversal competencies||(i) Critical Thinking, (ii) Cooperation, (iii) Collaboration, (iv) Communication, (v) Creativity|
|Disciplinary competencies.||(i) Training and developing functional, technical, and technological knowledge and successful workplace performance skills. (ii) The capacity to research, design, create and implement new technologies. (iii) The use of emerging technologies and best practices to propose technology-based solutions.|
|Learning methods||Learning delivery modalities.||(i) Face-to-Face learning based mainly on Active Learning. (ii) Online distance learning. (iii) Hybrid learning.|
|Learning strategies||Pedagogical approaches such as challenge-based learning, problem-based learning, learning-by-doing, and gamification-based learning.|
|Information and communication technologies (ICT) categories||Technology-based||Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning, High-Data-Processing applying Data Science, Data Analytics and Cloud Computing, and Virtual Image Processing for virtual and experiential environments.|
|Tools and Platforms||Synchronous online sessions to support student learning through web conference technologies (e.g., ZOOM, Meets, Webex, M-Teams) and asynchronous learning platforms (Learning Management Systems, (LMS)).|
|Infrastructure levels||Classroom level||Innovative furniture; connected tools; classrooms, rooms, and libraries adapted with specific architecture, colors, illumination, sounds, and temperature to improve learning; virtual and augmented reality, and hologram systems.|
|Institutional level||Includes recreation, comfort, sustainability, and accessibility; services such as online libraries, instant messaging systems, remote laboratories enabled and widely used; access to internet services.|
|Reflection strategies to encourage self-regulated thinking.||Case-based learning.|
|Reflection strategies include professional self-perception, understanding, creativity, reflective observation, decision-making, sharing, capacity for dialogue, competency to propose improvements, social commitment, and others.|
|Research strategies to apply knowledge.||Research-based learning.|
Evidence-based educational innovation.
|The student’s mental processes are not in the knowledge per se (as is the case with the analysis processes), but the interest is in using this knowledge in specific situations.|
|Construction strategies to promote analysis.||Problem-based learning.|
|Can be used in face-to-face, b-learning, e-learning and m-learning environments, where spaces foster collaborative learning and systemic self-learning.|
|Contextualization strategies to foster collaboration.||Authentic.|
|Collaborative learning is one of the main goals to achieve high levels of cognition in meaning and essential qualities for personal and professional development. It also brings excellent interpersonal benefits.|
|Technology-mediated strategies for promoting digital competencies.||Mobile learning.|
Open educational resources.
|Information access and use skills that form the basis for continuous lifelong learning are common to all disciplines, learning environments, and all levels of education. They enable learners to master content and extend their research, become more self-directed, and assume greater control over their learning process.|
|Dimension||Research Questions (RQ)||Type of Answer Sought|
|Characteristics of published studies of frameworks for 21st century skills.||RQ1. What were the articles’ objects of study?|
RQ2. How many studies are in the Scopus and WoS databases over time and the dimension of learning targeted?
|Id of articles and references.|
No. of articles in the Scopus and WoS databases from 2006 to 2020?
|Learning dimensions: Skills, knowledge, character and meta-learning (Fadel et al., 2015)|
|Core components: Education 4.0 and 21st century skills||RQ3. What are the core Education 4.0 teaching and learning strategies applied in the study?||Teaching and learning Strategies (Ramírez-Montoya, 2012):|
|Core Education 4.0 (Miranda et al., 2021)|
Information and communication technologies (ICT)
|Learning dimensions and stakeholders||RQ4. Who are the stakeholders identified in the publications, and what core Education 4.0 competencies have been worked on in the frameworks?||Stakeholders (Own classification):|
|CCR Learning dimensions (Fadel et al., 2015):|
|(TITLE-ABS-KEY (“twenty-first century skills”) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY (frameworks))||TEMA: (“twenty-first century skills”) AND TEMA: (frameworks)|
|Title||Framework Approach for Components of Education 4.0|
|A1||A framework for the theory-driven design of digital learning environments (FDDLEs) using the example of problem-solving in chemistry education (Tiemann and Annaggar, 2020)||The framework consists of the steps “Analysis”, “Design”, “Development”, “Quality Assurance” and “Evaluation & Implementation.”Each step is characterized by a defined milestone, which, together with a cycle between crucial and non-arbitrary steps, indicates a product and goal orientation for development that distinguishes the model from conventional approaches.|
|A2||A framework to foster problem-solving in STEM and computing education (Priemer, et al., 2020)||This article emphasized twenty-first century skills, such as solving authentic problems. It integrated an interdisciplinary framework of problem-solving in STEM and computer science education by cumulatively including problem-solving methods from all of these domains. The framework can be used to develop STEM competencies and computer science education|
|A3||Active learning promoting student teachers’ professional competencies in Finland and Turkey (Niemi, et al., 2016)||This study shows the results of a quantitative analysis utilizing a regression analysis. It provided strong evidence that active learning impacts professional competencies. The qualitative analysis further revealed that active knowledge creation with high engagement by students to learn tasks and a collaborative learning culture were important active learning modes. Self-regulated and collaborative learning provided the theoretical framework for the active learning measurements.|
|A4||An investigation of verbal episodes that relate to individual and team performance in engineering student teams (Menekse, et al., 2019)||This study examined the different types of verbal episodes (questions, conflict, and reasoning episodes) in engineering student teams and how these verbal interactions related to individual and team performances. Collaborative problem-solving in team settings is a critical practice in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) fields as an effective teaching method that promotes outcomes associated with individual student learning and the quality of team solutions. The authors recommend from the findings that educators should monitor team interactions and promote student verbal exchanges to boost student learning and produce positive team outcomes.|
|A5||Apprenticing future economists: Analyzing an ESP course through the lens of the new CEFR extended framework (Portman and Broido, 2019)||Common European Framework (CEFR) provides valuable guidance to help institutions develop curricula to achieve English language skills. This paper describes advanced English for an economics course, aiming to facilitate economics students’ transformation from student to professional, in terms of English can-dos (mostly B2-C1), as described in the 2018 CEFR Companion Volume. The pedagogy underpinning the course is three-pronged, drawing on English for specific purposes, twenty-first century skills, and the CEFR.|
|A6||Assessing University Students’ Critical Online Reasoning Ability: A Conceptual and Assessment Framework with Preliminary Evidence (Molerov, et al., 2020)||This paper presents a conceptual framework for Critical Online Reasoning (COR), based on prior approaches (“information problem-solving,” “multiple-source comprehension,” “web credibility,” “informal argumentation,” and “critical thinking”). Critical evaluation skills of online information are considered necessary in many research and education frameworks. Higher education students are more likely to use the internet instead of offline sources such as textbooks when studying for exams. The internet poses various challenges, including a large amount of incomplete, contradictory, erroneous, and biased information, and needs a curated learning environment. Despite the central importance of critically evaluating online information, its assessment in higher education is still an emerging field.|
|A7||Assessment of University Students’ Critical Thinking: Next Generation Performance Assessment (Shavelson et al., 2019)||This approach leads to developing the project iPAL (The international Performance Assessment of Learning) framework, consolidating previous research and focusing on next-generation performance assessments. This paper presents iPAL’s assessment framework and shows how it guides the development of performance assessments, exemplifying these assessments with a concrete task and providing preliminary evidence of its reliability and validity.|
|A8||Blended learning model in a vocational educational training hospitality setting: from teachers’ perspectives (Zgraggen, 2021)||This research study explored the Vocational Educational Training (VET) teachers’ perspectives and experiences of a proposed Conceptual Blended Learning Framework (CBLF) model in a VET hospitality setting at the William Angliss Institute of Sydney (WAIS).|
|A9||Broadening design-led education horizons: conceptual insights and future research directions (Wright and Wrigley, 2019)||This paper introduces the Design-led Education Innovation Matrix, providing a prototype design-led framework to assist educators in developing and accessing twenty-first century knowledge, skills, and mindsets. In addition, it identifies related future research areas for academia, thereby extending the reach and scope of this emerging research area. It is a comprehensive literature review on educating a workforce for the knowledge economy. The role of design in business and educational innovation has contributed to a new approach to building a culture of practice for design-led education, based on the theory of the Innovation Matrix.|
|A10||Challenges Beyond Schooling: Innovative Models for Youth Skills Development in India (Mehrotra and Mehrotra, 2018)||The paper discusses the steps taken by the government to improve the articulation of vocational education in higher education, thus changing the “dead end” image of vocational education. The transition from school to work is the main policy focus, especially concerning the VET reforms. A radical change is taking place under the National Skills Qualification Framework.|
|A11||Computational Thinking and Media and Information Literacy: An Integrated Approach to Teaching Twenty-First Century Skills (Gretter and Yadav, 2016)||Developing students’ 21st century skills, including creativity, critical thinking, and problem-solving, has been a prevailing concern in our globalized and hyper-connected society. This article proposes an integrated approach to develop students’ 21st century skills in the classroom, considering computational thinking and media and information literacy and their practical applications.|
|A12||Computational thinking as an emerging competence domain (Yadav, et al., 2017)||This article discusses how computational thinking ideas are relevant to vocational education and training. It supports the view of digital literacy as a critical component of computational thinking and the need to incorporate it into vocational education and training. It provides directions for future research on the role of computational thinking in primary, secondary, and vocational education.|
|A13||Computer-based assessment of mathematics into the twenty-first century: pressures and tensions (Hoogland and Tout, 2018)||In recent decades, technology has influenced various aspects of assessment in mathematics education: (1) supporting the assessment of higher-order thinking skills in mathematics, (2) presenting authentic everyday problems to apply mathematical knowledge and skills, and (3) making the delivery of tests and psychometric analysis of results more sophisticated. This article describes the mathematics education essential for educating young people to be creative problem-solving agents in the twenty-first century.|
|A14||Confucius: Philosopher of twenty-first century skills (Tan, 2016)||This article introduces a structured interdisciplinary framework for collections-based learning, which intrinsically privileges the observer’s viewpoint and interpretations over makers, users, and descendant community members, producing a “colonizing” effect. This outcome does not serve anthropology’s decolonizing intentions of cultural relativism and context—or the “twenty-first century skills” with which anthropology aligns.|
|A15||Decolonizing Collections-Based Learning: Experiential Observation as an Interdisciplinary Framework for Object Study (Hodge, 2018)||This paper proposes a semi-structured experiential observation approach that unites formal art historical analysis, multisensory observations, and reflexive, polysemous cultural interpretation. The framework offers an interdisciplinary, decolonizing method of object study.|
|A16||Design for now, but with the future in mind: a “cognitive flexibility theory” perspective on online learning through the lens of MOOCs (Hu and Spiro, 2021)||This article shows the need for such a reframing is a tenet of cognitive flexibility theory (CFT) and the value of diverse perspectives afforded by the MOOCocracy culture. It also discusses how a CFT-based epistemic stance may further inform MOOCs’ future design and practice and, similarly, online learning in general. It presents some examples of ways CFT’s application of learning and instruction principles can benefit online learning for adaptive worldviews. The resultant development of adaptive skills is becoming increasingly essential for life and work. As a principled overlay of urgent preparation for current schooling, this framework can help us with better education designs and construction.|
|A17||Designing seamless learning activities for school visitors in the context of Fab Lab Oulu (Laru, et al., 2019)||Maker culture has expanded from its traditional niches (people interested in computers, programming, and the digital world) to other, more general fields such as education, business, and government, despite the interest in the Maker Movement and its connection to formal and informal education.|
|A18||Developing a Framework for Mobile Learning Adoption and Sustainable Development (Moya and Camacho, 2021)||This study focuses on research in the field of frameworks and models that highlight mobile learning rewards. This study investigates the main characteristics of a strategic framework for the adaption and sustainable use of mobile learning.|
|A19||Developing creativity through authentic programming in the inclusive classroom (Eddles-Hirsch, et al., 2020)||This paper will respond to educators’ needs by addressing the meaning of creativity and providing examples on how to develop it using models and strategies found in the research to be effective evidence-based frameworks for creativity in an inclusive classroom.|
|A20||Developing twenty-first century skills in out-of-school education: the Bridge21 Transition Year program (Sullivan, et al., 2020)||This article describes an instrumental case study of an out-of-school education program (Bridge21) designed to help students develop 21st century skills. Findings suggest that the Bridge21 model can provide significant and sustained increases in student confidence across a range of skills and that various program design elements contribute directly to this.|
|A21||Development of a twenty-first century skills scale for Agri varsities (Javed et al., 2019)||This article presents an exploratory study for generating a 19-items scale to measure twenty-first century skills and bridge the gap between science and practice.|
|A22||Different strokes for different folks: scaling a blended model of teacher professional learning (Butler, et al., 2017)||This paper describes an innovative model of teacher professional learning that has evolved over a decade (2006 to 2016) to develop three phases of a robust, flexible framework that meets teachers’ expressed needs. The most recent phase expands on the emergence of a fourth wave of online learning to design and develop a massive open online course (MOOC) that potentially enables the massive scaling up of access to this already validated teacher professional development model.|
|A23||Digital storytelling promoting twenty-first century skills and student engagement (Niemi and Multisilta, 2016)||This study presents the theoretical framework based on sociocultural theories. Learning occurs because of dialogical interactions between people, substances, and artifacts. This approach has been used to create the Global Sharing Pedagogy (GSP) model for the empirical study of student engagement in learning twenty-first century skills.|
|A24||Enhancing critical thinking through active learning (Kusumoto, 2018)||Framework for 21st Century Learning developed by the Partnership for 21st Century Learning (P21) values the importance of cultivating critical thinking. This paper reports on a study that explores how active learning with CLIL instruction helped Japanese EFL learners to develop critical thinking skills.|
|A25||Establishing the R&D agenda for twenty-first century learning (Kay and Honey, 2006)||Building on frameworks created by the Partnership for 21st Century Skills, this study proposes questions to guide research on teaching, professional development, and assessment relevant to twenty-first century skills. Knowing that educational change depends on providing teachers with the tools, support, and training to make fundamental changes in their practice, the authors argue for extensive research around best practices.|
|A26||Exploring the structure of digital literacy competence assessed using authentic software applications (Reichert, et al., 2020)||Digital literacy competence (DL) is essential for students learning in a rapidly changing world. The design of the DL assessment is discussed, emphasizing the influence of digital applications and environments on DL assessments and achievement scores.|
|A27||Facilitation of professional learning community conversations in Singapore (Salleh, 2016)||Professional Learning Community (PLC) has the potential to act as leverage school-based curricula development and innovation to provide diverse learning experiences that achieve broader learning outcomes beyond academic achievements (e.g., the twenty-first century skills). New competencies facilitate PLC conversations. This paper describes key findings of observations by three Grade 5 PLC facilitators in an intervention to explore how PLC facilitators can support teachers’ collective learning.|
|A28||How Do Students Value the Importance of Twenty-first Century Skills? (Ahonen and Kinnunen, 2015)||This article presents results from a Finnish study in which 718 school pupils aged 11 to 15 were asked to anticipate the skills they would need in the future. Social skills and collaboration were ranked highest in the listed frameworks and the students’ free responses. As expected, the boys appreciated technical skills, while the girls ranked social skills more highly.|
|A29||Implementation and sustainability of a global ICT company’s programme to help teachers integrate technology into learning and teaching in Germany, France, and the UK (Arati, et al., 2011)||This paper discusses implementing the “Intel Teach” professional development program in Germany, the UK, and France. The programme is designed to help school teachers effectively integrate technology into learning and teaching and help students develop critical “twenty-first century skills.”These factors are grouped into three categories: (1) concept transfer, (2) experience transfer, and (3) establishing standards.|
|A30||Innovative Pedagogies of the Future: An Evidence-Based Selection (Herodotou, et al., 2019)||In this work, an integrated framework with five dimensions was developed to select pedagogies for inclusion: (a) relevance to effective educational theories, (b) research evidence on the effectiveness of the proposed pedagogies, (c) correlation to the development of twenty-first century skills, (d) innovative aspects of pedagogy, and (e) level of adoption in educational practice. The selected pedagogies related to drones, robots, and citizen inquiry were linked to specific technological developments.|
|A31||Investigating Entrepreneurship Among Algerian Youth: Is It a Knowledge-Intensive Factory? (Izzrech, et al., 2013)||Entrepreneurs should be knowledgeable and skillful in economic development through entrepreneurial activity in the twenty-first century, especially in a knowledge-based economy. Many young individuals tend to create their own jobs worldwide in this millennium.|
|A32||Investigating science and mathematics teacher candidate’s perceptions of TPACK-21 based on 21st century skills (Başaran, 2020)||A relational survey model was used in the research. In the research, the scale developed by Valtonen et al. (2017) determining prospective teachers’ TPACK-21 21st century skills were used. The data obtained in the study were analyzed by structural equation modeling to determine the direct and positive effects of Technological Content Knowledge (TCK), Technological Pedagogical Knowledge (TPK21) and Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK21) from external variables. The binary knowledge fields of the research are seen in TPACK-21.|
|A33||A lens on Climate Change: Making Climate Meaningful Through Student-Produced Videos (Gold, et al., 2015)||This study to present a program engaged students in research and learning about climate change and sparked their interest in science careers.|
|A34||Logical Reasoning in Formal and Everyday Reasoning Tasks (Bronkhorst, et al., 2020)||Evaluated results showed that students were highly motivated by the experience, developed a genuine interest in their science topic, learned about the scientific process, and developed twenty-first century skills.|
|A35||Making and Implementing a Mathematics Day Challenge as a Makerspace for Teams of Students (Doorman, et al., 2019)||This study addresses twenty-first century skills in mathematics education with the maker movement’s framework and methodological approach. The design of these learning spaces for students and the practices engaged are described and analyzed. The results show that the maker perspective bears similarities to the problem-solving perspective, but emphasizes the importance of tinkering, making something, and working as a community of practice. The task characteristics that facilitate students’ making processes are meaningful contexts, the low-floor, high-ceiling character of the open problem, and the request for a product.|
|A36||Preparing teacher-students for twenty-first century learning practices (PREP 21): a framework for enhancing collaborative problem-solving and strategic learning skills (Häkkinen, et al., 2017)||This article aims to present a pedagogical framework for the twenty-first century learning practices in teacher education. It elaborates the processes and strategies for collaborative problem-solving skills and strategic learning. It specifies current skills and provides case examples of strategic learning skills, collaborative problem-solving skills, and the skills to use information and communication technologies in diverse contexts.|
|A37||Reconceptualizing TPACK to Meet the Needs of Twenty-First Century Education (Cherner and Smith, 2017)||This research examined TPACK’s multiple dimensions and re-conceiving it to focus on students learning twenty-first century skills.|
|A38||Rethinking learning design: Reconceptualizing the role of the learning designer in pre-service teacher preparation through a design-led approach (Kickbusch, et al., 2020)||Design-thinking approaches are practical for developing and acquiring twenty-first century skills. This study combined research on learning design, teacher self-efficacy, and design-led educational innovation to formulate the Learning DESIGN Model, a conceptual model of how learning designers can improve students’ acquisition of twenty-first century skills. The model facilitates the development of design-thinking processes, skills, and mindsets in PSTs to improve their self-efficacy and enable more student-centered approaches toward curriculum design and classroom practice.|
|A39||Scaffolding students’ development of creative design skills: A curriculum reference model (Lee and Kolodner, 2011)||This paper provides a framework for promoting creative design capabilities among high school students to achieve sustainable community goals. The framework can be used as a reference model to design formal or out-of-school curriculum units in any geographical region. The framework helps curricula adaptation over a variety of communities while maintaining the main structures of the curricula. Modular content and the sequencing of strategies and tactics support learning science and creative design skills.|
|A40||Selected aspects and conditions of the use of robots in STEM education for young learners as viewed by teachers and students (Smyrnova-Trybulska, et al., 2017)||This paper discusses science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education issues. It emphasizes the need to prepare students with twenty-first century skills through STEM-related teaching, especially at the elementary level. The authors stress that using kits to build and program robots in workshops is a modern form of interdisciplinary education for children and youth.|
|A41||Social innovation education: Designing learning for an uncertain world (Alden-Rivers, 2016)||This study proposes a reconceptualization of undergraduate education to support the development of students as agents of positive social change. Social innovation education is put forward as a new pedagogy for the twenty-first century.|
|A42||Synthesizing Pedagogies and Engaging Students: Creating Blended eLearning Strategies for Library Research and Writing Instruction (Kitchens, et al., 2016)||This article identifies reference opportunities and the importance of online and face-to-face student support. This article highlights a chunked, contextual eLearning instead of a linear approach to information literacy.|
|A43||Teachers’ experiences of technology-based teaching and learning in the Foundation Phase (Hannaway and Steyn, 2017)||This article describes two qualitative research case studies of technology-rich schools using research methods with photovoice, semi-structured interviews and field notes. It examined teachers’ experience with the Technological Pedagogical and Content Knowledge framework to understand the Foundation Phase, providing a vital contribution to understanding how technology-based teaching and learning occurs.|
|A44||Technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge in one-to-one classroom: teachers developing “digital wisdom.” (Blau, et al., 2016)||This article describes the results were examined through phenomenological research techniques and discussed in terms of the technological, pedagogical and content knowledge (TPACK) and “digital wisdom” approaches. The teachers showed significant increase in technological knowledge. However, only moderate connections between technology and pedagogy as well as between technology and content were found.|
|A45||The “vernacularization” of global education policy: media and digital literacy as twenty-first century skills in Singapore (Weninger, 2017)||This paper investigates media and digital literacy at the nexus of global twenty-first century education initiatives and theirlocal interpretation within Singapore’s education system, with special|
attention to the role of creative digital production. It examines how technological changes have reshaped communication, social life, and the conditions of work, challenging schools to foster skills and capacities that help youth navigate these new socio-technological terrains competently and confidently as workers, citizens, and private individuals.
|A46||The construct of media and information literacy in Singapore education system: global trends and local policies (Lin, et al., 2015)||This paper discusses information literacy and media literacy in Singapore education as part of its twenty-first century competencies framework with particular attention to the role of creative digital production.|
|A47||The expectations of Finnish RE student teachers of their professional development in their academic studies in the light of twenty-first century skills (Viinikka and Ubani, 2019)||This study examines the expectations of religious education (RE) student teachers about their professional development during their academic studies. The RE student teachers also considered the twenty-first century skills relevant for a competent RE teacher.|
|A48||The Role of Pedagogy in Developing Life Skills (Gupta, 2021)||This article examines the role of pedagogy in developing life skills (or twenty-first century skills) and how these can be incorporated into the school/university curriculum. The article briefly touches on how teachers’ beliefs affect their classroom practices and recommends focusing on teachers’ professionalization. Only then can students acquire skills relevant to the twenty-first century, which employers seek.|
|A49||TPACK updated to measure pre-service teachers’ twenty-first century skills (Valtonen, 2017)||Students of today and the future are expected to have the skills necessary for collaborating, problem-solving, creative and innovative thinking, and taking advantage of information and communication technology (ICT) applications. Teachers must be familiar with various pedagogical approaches and the appropriate ways to use ICT to support the development of their students’ twenty-first century skills. The technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) framework provides a theoretical model for studying teachers’ use of ICT in education.|
|A50||Twenty-first century learning and technology education nexus (Snape, 2011)||The author discusses existing strategies that will guide educators in infusing twenty-first century skills into traditional content areas such as math, English, geography, and science. Public policy regarding educational standards, professional development, assessments, and physical school structures must exist to enable educators to employ twenty-first century skills, leading to student success in contemporary life. The price of not making twenty-first century skills a priority in the classroom will have negative consequences for future economic wellbeing. The writers introduce two perspectives developed to address twenty-first century learning and highlight how the Technology Education curriculum and Guided Inquiry are ideally suited for delivering this skill set.|
|A51||Twenty-first century learning for teachers: helping educators bring new skills into the classroom (Wilson, 2006)||The motivation behind every educator’s dedication and hard work in the classroom is the knowledge that his or her teaching will result in students’ success in life. Educators are committed to implementing twenty-first century skills; they have no question that students need them to be equipped for life beyond school. The author discusses existing strategies that will guide educators in infusing twenty-first century skills into traditional content areas such as math, English, geography, and science. Ultimately, public policy regarding educational standards, professional development, assessments, and physical school structures must exist to enable educators to employ twenty-first century skills, leading to student success in contemporary life.|
|A52||Understanding learning in video games: A phenomenological approach to unpacking boy cultures in virtual worlds (Engerman, et al., 2019)||This paper describes how experiences that mirrored twenty-first century skills aligned with the Partnership for Twenty-first Century Learning framework through digital gameplay and the findings of a phenomenological research study to uncover possible skills that boys learn through peer-supported activities using commercial off-the-shelf video games.|
|A53||Usages and impacts of the integration of information and communication technologies (ICTs) in elementary classrooms: a case study of Swedish municipality schools (Sahlin, et al., 2017)||Many schools have started implementing information and communication technologies with learning devices (such as laptops, tablets, cell phones, and active boards) in classroom settings to increase learning outcomes. This study aimed to find which activities and outcomes were evident in using computing devices and how they aided elementary-level students in their learning activities.|
|A54||What does “new learning” require from religious education teachers? A study of Finnish RE teachers’ perceptions (Lipiäinen, et al., 2020)||The study highlights the Assessment and Teaching of Twenty-first Century Skills (ATC21S) framework and its four teacher categories. For teachers, it emphasizes the ways of thinking, tools for working, and ways of working categories.|
|A55||Why American business demands twenty-first century learning: A company perspective (Knox, 2006)||Microsoft is an innovative corporation demonstrating the caliber of job skills needed in the twenty-first century. It demonstrates its commitment to twenty-first century skills by holding its employees accountable to a set of core competencies, enabling the company to run effectively. The author explores how Microsoft’s core competencies parallel the Partnership for 21st Century Skills learning frameworks.|
|A56||Why American business demands twenty-first century skills: an industry perspective (Bruett, 2006)||Dell supports schools in meeting educational goals, striving to supply students with the necessary twenty-first century skills. The Partnership for 21st Century Skills, of which Dell is a member, has led an initiative to define what twenty-first century learning should entail.|
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
González-Pérez, L.I.; Ramírez-Montoya, M.S. Components of Education 4.0 in 21st Century Skills Frameworks: Systematic Review. Sustainability 2022, 14, 1493. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14031493
González-Pérez LI, Ramírez-Montoya MS. Components of Education 4.0 in 21st Century Skills Frameworks: Systematic Review. Sustainability. 2022; 14(3):1493. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14031493Chicago/Turabian Style
González-Pérez, Laura Icela, and María Soledad Ramírez-Montoya. 2022. "Components of Education 4.0 in 21st Century Skills Frameworks: Systematic Review" Sustainability 14, no. 3: 1493. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14031493