13 March 2021

Why do we need global education and digital citizenship?

Even as far back as 1988, Elise Boulding stated that to point of global education is to “create a peaceful, interdependent world which would be a good place for people to live”. Idealistically, this is what we all want - however, having worked in five different international schools, and having experienced global education in four different countries, the “tensions between the national and the global, as well as between unity and diversity, remain highly relevant in today’s increasingly globalized world” (Ho, 2009). Finding this balance, of retaining identity and culture whilst at the same time promoting tolerance and peace, is exactly the point, to me, of what a global education means, echoed by Global Education for Canadians (2017), which recognises that “relationships with emerging countries are becoming increasingly important” for a successful future.

If the global workforce is increasingly dependent on technology (Adams, 2002; Karkouti, 2016) and the point of education is to ready the next generation for employment, schools must consider the impact that digital competencies will have on their level of readiness for the world of work in a global society. If we are to create a successful global society, we must acknowledge the diversity of cultures and the coexistence of different civilizations within our one world (UNESCO, 2011). Tapio Varis (2011) states that during the end of “the 20th century and early years of the 21st century, digital technologies and the new media (ICT) have come to occupy the epicentre of our lives” suggesting that they are, therefore, “a key factor in this specific civilizing stage” of our evolution and asks whether we should replace “the term ‘Digital Age’” with “multicultural world?” (UNESCO, 2011). Whilst it is true that technology-enhanced learning appears to have become the new acceptable global term - and the emphasis should be on 'enhanced', we have to use technology as a tool that allows us to deliver more effective, personalised, interactive, relevant globally-aware learning. Even with the advent of technology, "the future will never be without teachers" but instead, our roles will change; technology will allow teaching and learning to be "more effective" and will allow educators to become "enablers and supporters" rather than "lecturers and controllers". I would argue that it already has - this change should already have happened. In twenty years, we will be, should be, way beyond this. In so far as the suggestion that educators will never be replaced; I think this is a bigger area of debate. If we simply use technology to deliver the same curriculum of content-based knowledge, I believe we could very easily be replaced.

Issues preventing this move included Westernisation and particularly, language: in Qatar, it is hard for schools to move towards this truly global education because, despite it being the fifth most commonly spoken language in the world, only three percent of Internet content is Arabic, (ictQATAR, 2015). In addition, a lack of Arabic-based educational technology tools represents a major challenge for Public School teachers who are trying to integrate technology into their instruction (Karkouti, 2016). In addition, much of the world is still governed by traditional religion, meaning their educational policies present a “mismatch between traditional and modern education” (Bahgat, 1999), in some part, due to “cultural and religious norms that define all facets of people’s lives” (Breslin & Jones, 2010; Romanowski & Nasser, 2012; Rostron, 2009).

The point about technology is that it should shift our practises; it is not about delivering the same stuff but using a computer. It means a paradigm mind-shift into skills that enable learners to be successful in a global world; it enables personalised learning based on spontaneous teachable moments, it means a strong relationship between learner and educator - which is what keeps the 'human' necessary. The fact that elearning courses strive for more 'human experiences' and more face-to-face meetings means we still have a desire to communicate with a human being. Digital citizenship is actually about how to communicate with other people, with all kinds of people, with technology; it is a whole new way of communicating that technology has allowed us and as educators, we need to think about how to use it to create a global workforce that is tolerant and ready for the future.

Bahgat, G. (1999). Education in the Gulf monarchies: Retrospect and prospect. International

       Review of Education, 45(2), 127-136. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1003610723356

Boulding, El. (1988) Building a Global Civic Culture – Education for an Interdependent World. Teachers

       College, Columbia University.

Breslin, J., & Jones, T. (2010). Qatar. In S. Kelly & J. Breslin (Eds.), Progress amid

       resistance: Women's rights in the Middle East and North Africa (pp. 397-424). Lanham, MD: 
       Freedom House.

Global Education for Canadians. (2017, November). Retrieved from http://goglobalcanada.ca/

Ho, Li-Ching (2009, November/December). Global multicultural citizenship education: A Singapore

       experience. Retrieved from http://www.hci.sg/admin/uwa/MEd7_8678/Global_Multicultural_


Karkouti, I. M. (2016). Qatar's Educational System in the Technology-Driven Era: Long

      Story Short. International Journal Of Higher Education, 5(3), 182-189.

Qatar’s National ICT Plan 2015: Advancing the Digital Agenda. (n.d.). Retrieved from



Romanowski, M. H., & Nasser, R. (2012). Critical thinking and Qatar's education for a new

       era: Negotiating possibilities. International Journal of Critical Pedagogy, 4(1), 118-134.

Rostron, M. (2009). Liberal arts education in Qatar: Intercultural perspectives. Intercultural

       Education, 20(3), 219-229. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14675980903138517

The past, present, and future of education. (2013, February 21). Retrieved from


UNESCO Institute (2011). ICT in teacher education: Policy, open educational resources and partnership.

       Retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0019/001936/193658e.pdf

08 February 2021

Textese: Impact on Grade 6 English Language & Literature

Learning Issue: Basic Sentence Conventions

As a teacher of Grade 6 Language and Literature, I have found that many learners enter middle school without basic foundational knowledge of sentence conventions, particularly capitalisation and ending punctuation. The IBO May 2018 MYP Subject Report for the Language and Literature examination supports these observations, stating that “candidates seemed to have lost track of basic conventions like capitalization and the use of ending punctuation despite exhibiting good control in other areas of language use” (2018). In addition, data from externally marked online examinations in Language and Literature, at the exit point of the MYP in Grade 10, also indicate that our learners are not quite yet reaching the global average grade.

Data has also been gathered from a diagnostic writing test administered to the sample group at the beginning of the academic year. Anecdotal evidence of the learning issue also comes from teaching Grade 6, leading the English Language and Literature department Grades 6-12, and being the Middle Years Programme (MYP) Curriculum coordinator for all subjects Grades 6-10.

Learning Issue Causes: Textese

If “new technologies will, as they always have, influence how we gain and use knowledge” ("Could texting and autocorrect affect kids' writing skills?", 2014) then it follows that the way we communicate on these new technologies, via text messaging for example, must have an impact on our language. In 2008, when

Prensky identified the children of that generation as ‘digital natives’, research conducted found “no evidence” that texting had “any negative association” with the “written language competence” of middle school learners (Plester et al., 2008, p. 142). Instead, research suggested that children’s experiences with texting had a positive impact and actually raised “awareness of the variety of language registers available to them” (Plester et al., 2008, p. 143). Essentially, they viewed it as simply “another genre of writing” (UWIRE, 2014, p. 1). However, those children were born in the mid-nineties when technology was not nearly as prevalent as it is today; they grew up “adapting to the new technology” that started to surround them whereas children today are learning “digital communication and messaging almost at the same time” ("Texting a social barrier for children already struggling with reading and writing skills", 2017, p. 1). Today’s children are suffering from the “confusion created by switching between textese a formal writing styles” that children seemed more than able to do only nine years ago.

Learning Issue Causes: Tech at an Early Age

The data from the sample group in this study suggests that almost half the learners face issues with writing standard English sentences, and this problem has worsened in recent years. A major reason could be not only the ubiquitous nature of technology identified above, but also due to the fact that it is prevalent in their lives from a much younger age than they did before. Data suggests that children get their first smartphone at 10.3 years old (Influence Central), with 45 percent stating that they are “almost constantly” on the internet (Schaeffer, 2019, p. 1). Speaking at a conference in 2017, Dr Nenagh Kemp suggested that the “fallout from the trend towards children receiving phones a lot earlier in life” means that do so before they have “a lot of intact reading and spelling ability” (UWIRE, 2014, p. 1), which helps explain the learning issue identified here and why it has become more of an issue in the past few years.

Even in 2004, four or five years before the learners identified for this project were born, text messaging was “one of the fastest growing modes of communication” with “the proportion of young people estimated to be active ‘texters’” as more the 72 percent (Plester, Wod, & Bell, 2008, p. 137). Numbers in 2008 placed children using text messages at 96 percent with more than half preferring texting their friends than talking to them (Plester et al., 2008, p. 137). Whilst actual SMS texts may not be the preferred mode of communication for children in 2019, with apps such as Snapshat, for example, taking their place, the language of textese has nevertheless spread from text messages into these other recent digital modes of communication.

Learning Issue Causes: Advances in Tech

The phones that make their way into today’s children’s hands at a young age now also do even more for them than ever before. Innovations such as autocorrect put “capital letters and full stops” (Kemp, 2017) into their writing and recent findings suggest that students have become dependent on these tools. This impacts on lower-ability writers in particular, who are still grappling with the fundamentals of standard English whilst simultaneously both viewing the majority of their written language in textese and having minor errors adjusted for them automatically. Similar findings were uncovered in a study conducted by the University of Cambridge when looking at GCSE examination papers to find evidence of the permeation of ‘text speak’ into formal exam writing. The study found issues with “lower achieving pupils” in terms of “poorer punctuation, with fewer full stops and capital letters, in styles similar to social media posts and message”. They found that these candidates were “twice as likely to start sentences with a lower case rather than a capital letter as teenagers who took their exams a decade earlier” (Hurst, 2016, p. 37).

This decline in the basics of sentence beginning and ending conventions therefore, seems to have a direct correlation with the ever-present use of smartphones from a young age, the technology used to ‘correct’ errors, and the simultaneous learning of textese and formal language resulting in a subsequent inability to distinguish effectively between the two.

Technology-Based Solution: Focus

Sentence conventions in writing are skills that need to be mastered early in education to support success in later years. According to language expert David Crystal (2017) textese - the language of digital communication - is “both like and unlike spoken and written language” (p. 125). The learning issue identified in this study exists because children today are growing up with textese as a major mode of communication both in tandem with learning their primary language and whilst still developing their written language skills. This is evident in the diagnostic writing sample submitted by the Grade 6 class for this study, where 85 percent demonstrated a lack of control in sentence punctuation and almost 70 percent showed an inability to use punctuation accurately at the start and/or end of their sentences.

When it comes to written language, textese does not share the strict conventions of standard English structures such as punctuation and capitalisation (Crystal, 2017, p. 49). For example, a study that tested middle-school learners general literacy ability in translating a text message into standard English showed regular patterns in “missing punctuation” were found (Plester et al., 2008, p. 139). As evidence from today’s young writers shows, they are so familiar with textese that they are unable to separate it from standard English conventions and so textese and its conventions is permeating their everyday writing. As a result, today’s middle-schoolers find it “more difficult to separate when to write formally and when to write informally” ("Texting a social barrier for children already struggling with reading and writing skills", 2017, p. 1).

Technology-Based Solution: Game-based Learning

Compounding the issue of the impact of textese on middle school learners’ language competencies, the school in the study also has a transient population, losing and gaining around 20-40% of learners in any given year. There is a rolling enrollment from the end of August to the middle of February, dates that are enforced by the country’s educational system, and learners enter the system from many different schools, countries, and curricula. By using a universal design for learning (UDL) model, the aim is to create a “flexible learning environment that is optimal for all learners” (Meyer et al., 2014, in Vue, et al., 2016, p. 86) with game-based elements that provide “an excellent medium for the acquisition of skills” (Denham, 2018, p. 1) at whatever point they join the school. As the exit point for the MYP is in Grade 10, where students sit on-screen external examinations, providing learners with opportunities to develop digital skills that help them manage and negotiate their way through online platforms from Grade 6 is also crucial. The intention is to do this through gamification, a method by which “game-like features like points and badges” (Looyestyn, et al., 2017, p. 1) are incorporated into the learning experience which is believed “to improve retention” (Faiella & Ricciardi, 2015, p. 14) of knowledge and skills.

Research suggests that by integrating technology into instructional writing practices learners demonstrate “greater improvements in quality of writing” (Vue, et al., 2016, p. 86). Therefore, to increase competency in basic writing skills, and at the same time embrace the technology that our learners have and use everyday, the intention is to develop a digital game-based system that leverages technology and allows learners to work independently through game-levels that provide scaffolding which “can support players while they master the skills necessary to progress” (Van Eck 2006; Schell 2014 in Denham, 2018, p. 2).

Technology-Based Solution: Tools

As a Google Suite for Education school, use of the range of Google tools will be used to develop a self-paced programme that can be completed independently by any learner. Vue, et al. (2015) suggest that a “web-based, writing environment that adheres to UDL can potentially improve access, comprehension, and retention of information” (p. 86), as well as provide choice and an authentic audience, which they cite as crucial motivational factors in improving writing skills. I intend to explore Deck Toys, a ‘drag and drop’ interactive online programme that allows integration of teacher-created content to be delivered in a way that allows “self-exploration” at students' “own pace” providing differentiated pathways for “ample practice for mastery of key concepts” (DeckToys). Google Forms can also be developed and integrated to deliver self-grading quizzes that automatically provide suggestions for additional support for answers that are incorrect, as well as access to pages containing the next level of progression once mastery of each level has been reached. Use of add-ons, such as Certify Me, will release badges or certificates to motivate the learners to keep working further.

As findings point towards the importance of recognising “the links between texting and academic competence in general and standard written English in particular” (Plester et al., 2008, p. 138) focus will be on the differences in textese and standard conventions of English, or “code-switching”. An understanding of standard English sentence punctuation and how it differs to the conventions of that in textese requires raising awareness of the two types of writing using methods, as discussed in “Flipping the Switch: Code-Switching from Text Speak to Standard English” (Turner, 2009). Having mastery over sentences means our learners can develop their writing skills providing them with “a significant advantage over those who do not write well” (Graham & Perrin, 2007, in Vue, et al., p. 83). The intention would be for learners to use this game-based programme to self-manage their own learning and get to a point of grade level expectations, as identified through the Common Core Language Progressive Skills, in terms of accuracy and competency in standard English conventions of sentence capitalisation and end punctuation.


Could texting and autocorrect affect kids' writing skills? (2014, May 19). Retrieved from https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/05/140519160531.htm.

Crystal, D. (2017). Language and the internet. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Demographics of Mobile Device Ownership and Adoption in the United States. (2019, June 12). Retrieved from https://www.pewinternet.org/fact-sheet/mobile/.

Denham, A. R. (2017). Using a digital game as an advance organizer. Educational Technology Research and Development, 66(1), 1–24. doi: 10.1007/s11423-017-9537-y

English Language Arts Standards " Language " Language Progressive Skills. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/ELA-Literacy/L/language-progressive-skills/.

Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2007). A meta-analysis of writing instruction for adolescent students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(3), 445–476. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.99.3.445

Hurst, G. (2016, December 2). Texting does not damage teenage writing skills. Retrieved from https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/texting-does-not-damage-teenage-writing-skills-0hzdkwvjs.

Kids & Tech: The Evolution of Today's Digital Natives. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://influence-central.com/kids-tech-the-evolution-of-todays-digital-natives/.

Looyestyn, J., Kernot, J., Boshoff, K., Ryan, J., Edney, S., & Maher, C. (2017). Does gamification increase engagement with online programs? A systematic review. Plos One, 12(3). doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0173403

Mayer, R. E. (2005). Cognitive theory of multimedia learning. In The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 31–48). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Plester, B., Wood, C., & Bell, V. (2008). Txt msg n school literacy: does texting and knowledge of text abbreviations adversely affect children’s literacy attainment? Literacy, 42(3), 137–144. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-4369.2008.00489.x

27 June 2018

Virtual Schools: Alternatives in Time, Space, and Place

The first virtual schools appeared in the 1990s reframing our idea of what constitutes a school by offering “alternative solutions to educating k-12 students” (Reid, Aqui & Putney, 2009). Virtual schools provide educational opportunities that are liberated “from the confines of rigid blocks of time and uninspired configurations of space to better meet the needs of students” (Vanourek, 2011) who “expect their education to be in line with their every day technology-rich experiences” (Wicks, 2010). Using the lens of delivery, this paper explores what it is that constitutes a virtual school and examines how teaching and learning is defined when it is “not bound by time, space, and pace” (Vanourek, 2011). It explains why this method of categorisation is chosen to define these types of schools and discusses the impact virtual delivery has on the educational experiences of K12 students.

Defining Virtual Schools

Online learning experiences are becoming more common because the growth of technology-rich education is seen as an “appropriate” and even “necessary” way to educate the current digital generation (Wicks, 2010). In opposition to learning that takes place in a traditional brick and mortar institution, a virtual school can be defined as one which offers “learning experiences via the Internet” (Salsberry, 2010). However, with the advent of high-technology delivery in traditional classrooms, this simplistic definition is not necessarily beneficial to aiding a clear understanding of what constitutes a virtual school. Barker, Wendel, and Richmond (1999) clearly separate virtual teaching and learning from traditional schooling by defining a virtual school as one where students take all of their courses in the virtual environment. Russell’s (2004) definition, however, suggests that a virtual school “uses online computers to provide some or all of a student’s education”. Clark (2000), also proposes that a virtual school is one that offers “learning methods that include Internet-based delivery”, suggesting that virtual schooling only needs to “include” virtual delivery rather than have “all” of the learning taking place virtually. The method of delivery in Clark’s definition, the most widely accepted in regards virtual schools, is not exclusively online, and therefore not dissimilar from many of today’s technology-rich classrooms. This raises the question as to what the fundamental difference is between traditional classrooms that utilise technology and a virtual school if both can use the internet to deliver some of the learning.

To clearly distinguish between the two, it is necessary to turn to the idea of “time, space, and pace” (Vanourek, 2011). Rather than children being taught in “in a room for 50-some minutes at a time in 180 6-hour days”(Vanourek, 2011) whether using the Internet or not, virtual schools are simply not confined to these restrictions, instead offering instruction that may be “synchronous or asynchronous” (Barker, Wendel & Richmond, 1999). It is this notion of a blend of delivery via the internet coupled with choices of when, where, and how learning can happen, that this paper uses to define virtual schooling as distinct from the more traditional methods in brick and mortar institutions.

Time, space and place

Delivery of learning in traditional school settings are confined by the timings of the school day, the classroom, and the country in which they operate. These restriction to time, space, and place are cast aside with virtual schooling through “independent, asynchronous, and synchronous” (Barbour, 2009) delivery. Traditional classrooms do not allow for this freedom of when students can choose to learn - they must be in a certain classroom, at a certain time, on a certain day, for a certain amount of time, little to none of which they have much, if any, choice in. Even if the Internet is used to deliver some of the learning, students are expected to complete tasks in the order given, with the other children in the room and, once the bell rings, move on to the next class regardless of whether they have grasped the lesson objectives or not. Virtual schools, on the other hand, provide the benefit of “educational choice” (Berge & Clark, 2005) because students have options of independent or synchronous learning and may also take time to complete tasks at their own pace, asynchronously.

To manage this freedom and monitor learning, some virtual school programmes may have prerequisites, such as how many times learners must communicate per day, and whilst “some asynchronous courses are self-paced”, others “have structured start and end dates” (Wicks, 2010). The Virtual School Prince William County School offers online courses where students “work at their own pace within semester benchmarks” (Watson, et al 2015). In Albuquerque, the eCADEMY Virtual High School offers online learning that incorporates “an element of face-to-face support that includes meeting at a variety of time and days during the week to accommodate the students’ school and work schedules” (Watson et al., 2015). In this method of delivery, coursework is “flexible, but not fully self-paced and released to the students in a methodical, careful way by the teacher who has assessed the pace and proficiency of student learning” (Watson et al., 2015). In this way, some virtual schools go further than simply offering choice as to when learning can happen, and also offer choice as to where it can take place by not restricting delivery to purely online or face to face methodologies but by offering a blend of the two.

Wolf Creek Online High School in Minnesota, for example, provides “on-campus programmes offerings two days a week that can be combined with the online course offerings” (Watson, Gemin, Vashaw & Papeet, 2015). This provides the ultimate choice in learning pathways, simultaneously allowing students opportunities to also “participate in traditional high school activities as sports” (Wicks, 2010). This blend of synchronous and asynchronous delivery, through both virtual and face to face learning, offers choice in when and where learning takes place. However, for the virtual element to happen successfully, the how of virtual schools, and the way learning is delivered is also of paramount consideration.

There is no doubt that “online education programmes are innovators of technology for teaching and learning” (Wicks, 2010), however, whilst many courses in virtual schools are divided into lessons that include both online and offline resources, it is important to note that successful delivery of virtual learning - as separated from high-tech traditional classrooms - cannot simply be traditional learning put on the Internet. Based upon 195 student surveys, Butz (2004) concluded that online instruction can motivate students who have different learning styles but the course environment and design must be carefully considered. “Little course material can be delivered via the equivalent of a classroom lecture” because today’s generation do not think of technology as “something separate from daily life” (Wicks, 2010). Therefore, schools needs to rethink what virtual education means to avoid prohibiting students from successfully “utlizing current technologies” to make technology “fully integrated into the learning process” (Wicks, 2010).

Many online courses are “delivered via a software package called a learning management system (LMS)”, which include “asynchronous communication tools” such as “email and threaded discussions”, while “synchronous communication tools integrate video...audio...text chat, and whiteboard” (Wicks, 2010). These choices of how learning is delivered are different from traditional classrooms and can improve student outcomes and skills (Berge & Clark, 2005) because the different methods of delivery used “allows for a more democratic communication environment”. Discussion boards and text chats break down boundaries that may disadvantage children in a traditional classroom, as “physical attributes such as gender, ethnicity, or physical disability that often shape our views of others are not immediately apparent in most forms of online communication” (Wicks, 2010). This also prevents situations where “discussions are frequently dominated by a few students” in a traditional classroom, because online discussions allow all students to participate without fear of being shouted down or drowned out by more vocal or confident students. In this way, by using notions of when, where and how learning can happen, virtual schools may offer flexible and equitable learning opportunities by removing impediments, through both choices and autonomy, creating a more level playing field for all students. It is for this reason that this method of describing virtual schools is used, however, consideration of the success of this way of delivering learning is also important.

Impact on Learning

Current K12 learners have grown up with the Internet; technology is “an integral part of their lives”, an “essential tool” and, by default, “learning online is natural” to these digital natives (Wicks, 2010). Research suggests that online education is useful in preparing learners for global competitiveness, as it provides them with the skills that they will need for the new knowledge economy (Zucker & Kozma, 2003). In 2009, the U.S. Department of Education released a report based on the analysis of fifty one online learning options with two major findings: the first that “students who took all or part of their class online performed better, on average, than those taking the same course through traditional face-to-face instruction”, and the second that “instruction combining online and face-to-face elements had a larger advantage relative to purely face to-face instruction than did purely online instruction” (Means, Toyama, Murphy, Bakia, & Jones, 2009). This suggests that the choices of space, time and place afforded by virtual schools can indeed improve learning outcomes and that the blended opportunities contribute to successful learning outcomes. However, it is important to think about the different kinds of learners that virtual schools, and the freedom of educational choices they offer, may benefit.

Online delivery methods provide opportunities to break down barriers to education Fulton (2002) and allow teachers the ability to customise learning by designing content that can “be modified to meet the unique needs of the learner, in terms of both cultural perspectives and learning styles”(Eriksson, 2016). This means delivery through choices of when, where, and how learning can place, potentially addresses learners who are gifted as well as those with specific learning needs. It is important to note, however, that enrolment in virtual schools does not necessarily reflect these potential advantages. The implication is that students who have not been successful in the traditional school environment, due to behavioral problems and other issues, often find success in online education, but there is little evidence, as yet, to support this assumption.

In 2012, Miron and Urschel conducted a report based on K-12 Inc., one of the largest for-profit virtual school organisations. Potentially, their many different delivery methods truly embrace the notions of options in time, space, and place, breaking down barriers that may be presented to children from differing backgrounds. However, rather than levelling the playing field, as suggested above, findings conclude that K-12 Inc. schools actually “enroll substantially more white students than the public schools in states where it operates” (Miron & Urschel, 2012). In addition, Carnahan and Fulton (2013) called attention to the fact that the population of special education students in cyber schools mirrors the population of special education students in brick-and-mortar classrooms, rather than exceeds it, as would be suggested by the variety of delivery methods afforded by such institutions. Indeed, in K-12 schools, the enrolment of students with disabilities stands at 9.4 %, which is significantly less when compared to the 11.5 % enrolled in public schools in the same states, and 13.1 % nationally (Toppin & Toppin, 2015).

Equally, even though some universities have begun offering online programmes to bring together gifted and academically high-achieving children, such as the Education Program for Gifted Youth at Stanford University, (Ash, 2016) there have been very few, if any, research studies to verify potential claims that educational outcomes are improved (Zucker & Kozma, 2003) for any member of virtual schooling. Research suggest that “the vast majority of virtual school students have tended to be a very select group of academically capable, motivated, independent learners” (Barbour, 2009) who would do well in any method of deliver, either virtual or face to face. This suggests that even though these schools offer autonomy and choice in time, space, and place for learning, not all aspects of society are utilising these opportunities and this needs to be considered for true success in revolution education. It seems it is not enough then to simply offer choices in time, space and place in terms of the delivery methods of education, active considerations need to be made to ensure that all “online programs must make sure that they are available to all” (Wicks, 2010) if all are to take advantage of the potential of this method of delivery in learning.


Online virtual schools challenge some of the most basic assumptions about schooling in today’s world. The delivery methods explored here, where learners can choose when, where, and how to learn using a variety of digital communication techniques, means that, there is potential for all kinds of learners to garner equitable access to educational opportunities in ways that work for each individual student. Virtual school environments may be “preparing students for the modern workplace” by providing authentic communication opportunities through “a variety of communication mechanisms” which “mirror the real world” (Wicks, 2010). In addition, “the online classroom is more likely to bring together students from different backgrounds”, preparing learners for a global world, as “students may be enrolled from across a state or even from all over the world” meaning that they are exposed to people with different backgrounds, ideas and belief systems (Vanourek, 2011). This exposure to a variety of perspectives means online learning can “develop communication skills that are important for our global economy” (Wicks, 2010), but it still is not necessarily accessible to all and bears little difference to some high-technology brick and mortar based international schools.

This paper outlines many cross-overs between the two methods of learning, but it is the truly flexible nature of how, when, and where learning can happen in a virtual school context that is what separates them from high-tech traditional classrooms. Fundamentally, virtual schools challenge the concept of time in learning, changing it from carefully synchronised scheduling into a potentially fluid and continuous process where learning takes place anywhere and anytime (Eriksson, 2012). Choices in time, space, and place for the delivery of learning are used to define virtual schools in this context, as it is this which is used to set apart a virtual school from a traditional school that uses technology integration. Even though, currently, the opportunities for all kinds of learners are not yet addressed equitably, this type of learning choice can, for many, provide an excellent alternative to those “who may not be well-served” (Reid et al., 2009) in traditional classroom environments, including learners who are in rural locations, who have social, emotional or behavioural needs, have been bullied, have disabilities or needs that cannot be met by traditional brick and mortar schooling (Barbour, 2009). However, for this kind of schooling to be successful, the course design should be engaging and use multiple instructional approaches to appeal to diverse learning styles (Toppin & Toppin, 2015). Virtual schools and online learning therefore, will have no real impact on student achievement unless there is also changes in how instruction is designed, delivered, and supported, and to date, there is no independent, reliable research that indicates that this transformation in pedagogy is occurring (Barbour, 2012).


Ash, K. (2016, May 10). Universities Run E-Schools for K-12 Gifted Students. Retrieved

from https://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2011/03/17/25highered.h30.html

Barbour, M. K., & Reeves, T. C. (2009). The reality of virtual schools: A review of the

literature. Computers & Education,52(2), 402-416. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2008.09.009.

Barker, K., Wendel, T., & Richmond, M. (1999). Linking the literature: School effectiveness

and virtual schools. Vancouver, BC: FuturEd. Retrieved from


Berge, Z. L., & Clark, T. (2005). Virtual schools: Planning for success. New York, NY:

Teachers College Press.

Clark, T. (2000). Virtual high schools: State of the states – A study of virtual high school

planning and preparation in the United States. Center for the Application of

Information Technologies, Western Illinois University. http://www.imsa.edu/


Eriksson, G. (2012). Virtually there – transforming gifted education through new

technologies, trends and practices in learning, international communication and global education. Gifted Education International,28(1), 7-18. doi:10.1177/0261429411424381.

Hunter, J. (2015). Technology integration and high possibility classrooms: Building from

TPACK. New York: Routledge.

Kaseman, L., & Kaseman, S. (2000). How will virtual schools effect homeschooling. Home

Education Magazine (November–December), 16–19.

Means, B. Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., Bakia, M., & Jones, K. (2009). Evaluation of

Evidence-Based Practices in Online Learning: a Meta-Analysis and Review of Online Learning Studies, United States Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development, Policy and Program Studies Service.

Reid, K., Aqui, Y., & Putney, L. (2009). Evaluation of an evolving virtual school. Educational

Media International, 46(4), 281–294.

Rice, K. L. (2006). A comprehensive look at distance education in the K-12 context. Journal

of Research on Technology in Education, 38(4), 425–448.

Russell, G. (2004). Virtual schools: A critical view. In C. Cavanaugh (Ed.), Development

and management of virtual schools: Issues and trends (pp. 1–25). Hershey, PA: Idea


Salisbury, T. (2010). K-12 virtual schools, accreditation, and leadership: what are the issues?

Educational Considerations, 37 (2), 14–17.

Toppin, I. N., & Toppin, S. M. (2015). Virtual schools: The changing landscape of K-12

education in the U.S. Education and Information Technologies, 21(6), 1571-1581. doi:10.1007/s10639-015-9402-8.

Vanourek, G. (2011). An (Updated) primer on virtual charter schools: Mapping the electronic

frontier. Authorizing Matters, Issue Brief, NACSA Cyber Series. Retrieved from


Watson, J., Gemin, B., Vashaw, L. & Pape, L. (2015). Keeping Pace with K-12 Online

Learning: An Annual Review of State-Level Policy and Practice, 2015. Evergreen

Education Group. Retrieved from https://www.inacol.org/wp-content/uploads/


Wicks, M. (2010, October). INACOL. Retrieved from https://www.inacol.org/resource/


22 June 2018

Digital Literacy in Qatari Schools: Education to Support a Knowledge-Based Economy

According to Kaminski and Bolliger (2012) a lack of technology skills remains one of the main concerns of employers around the world. If the global workforce is increasingly dependent on technology (Adams, 2002; Karkouti, 2016) and the point of education is to ready the next generation for employment, schools must consider the impact that digital competencies will have on their level of readiness for the world of work in a global society.

Education has always made this provision in terms of a basic level of literacy necessary for communication. However, if we consider literacy as not only the ability to read and write but also to have education and knowledge enough to operate successfully, then we need to rethink what literacy means in today’s digital world. With particular reference to Qatar's Educational System in the Technology-Driven Era: Long Story Short (Karkouti, 2016) and What Motivates and Engages Students in the Education Process - An Examination of Qatari Students' Mindset and Attitudes toward Going to School, Learning, and Future Aspirations (Lee, 2016), this paper examines the levels to which the curriculum standards of Qatar’s Public Schools address digital literacy. With a lens focusing on the extent Qatari learners are being prepared to take their place in a knowledge-based, self-sustainable economic workforce, it analyses the technological and educational reform strategies of the country and considers ways alternative curricula on offer within Qatar could enhance these standards.

Knowledge Economy for Tomorrow’s Workforce

To create a knowledge-based economy, citizens must possess not only the necessary skills and competencies but also the desire and willingness to participate and contribute to their society. If Qatar are to be successful in their desire to ‘Qatarise’ their economy and reduce dependence on foreign workers, the country needs to embrace “modern innovations and information technology systems” Bahgat (1999). Qatari children therefore need to be provided educational opportunities that will allow them to take ownership of the learning required to build that knowledge economy (Stiglitz, 1999); as such, Qatar’s national vision places importance in “national human capital development through education” (Lee, 2016).

When it comes to the ‘skills and competencies’ required to create a knowledge-based economy, Qatar, “still lags behind many other advanced nations because many lack the necessary digital skills and knowledge common among their peers in other developed nations” (Qatar's National Digital Plan, 2015). This failure in education means that Qataris are missing “key opportunities to participate in the global digital economy” (Qatar's National Digital Plan, 2015). In terms of ‘desire and willingness’ to participate and contribute in a knowledge-based economy, research conducted in Qatari public schools found that in the attitudes and motivations among students in towards learning, school, and future aspirations found that “Qatari boys least value education” (Lee, 2016). These feelings in turn contribute to attitudes regarding “Qataris’ current and future education and career choices” all of which is “problematic in the development of a knowledge economy, particularly when these are the future leaders of the society” (Lee, 2016).

To meet the country’s changing needs and ensure that “Qatari citizens can contribute positively to the development of their socioeconomic system” (Stasz et al., 2007), Qatar has recognised the need to reform their education to address outdated methodologies that “mainly emphasized transmission and reception of knowledge through memorization and replication of revealed concepts” (Rostron, 2009; Weber, 2010). As such, the government embarked on an educational initiative intended to meet the country’s changing economic and social needs. This decision arose from an understanding for the need to develop students’ critical thinking skills in order to prepare a new generation of skilled professionals” who will be able to take place in a competitive global economy (Rostron, 2009; Stasz et al., 2007).

Educational Reform in Qatar

Qatar’s educational system provides fully financed public schooling for the vast majority of local citizens. However, in a country with a highly transient expatriate workforce, there are also a large number of private and international schools. All schools come under the control of the Ministry of Education (MoE) but whilst all Public Schools in Qatar are required to use the Qatar National Curriculum Standards, private schools can operate educational curricula from specific countries in order to serve the diverse population.

Realising that that the oil and gas reserves currently fuelling the economy are finite resources, the government of Qatar recently sought educational reform for their public schools in order to invest in a knowledge-based economy and cultivate a long-term sustainable evolution as a worldly nation (Al-Sulayti, 1999). The government was concerned that the country’s educational system was “not producing high-quality outcomes and was rigid, outdated, and resistant to reform” (Brewer et al., 2007) and consulted RAND Corporation, a nonprofit American institution that assists organisations in policy making decisions (Romanowski & Nasser, 2012; Rostron, 2009). They wanted an analysis of their current education system and help in building “a world-class system that would meet the country’s changing needs” (Brewer et al., 2007). Not only did RAND find that graduate students were not academically qualified to meet employers’ expectations but more significantly discovered that Qatar’s educational curriculum is “unchallenging” and “emphasized rote memorization” (Brewer et al., 2007; Rostron, 2009) rather than twenty first century and higher order thinking skills..

This backs up wider research in the region that suggests the quality of education in the Gulf still lacks the elements that prepare students for the job market because technical training, science, and information technology curricula are not emphasized in their academic programs (Bahgat, 1999; Wiseman & Anderson, 2012). One reason for this in Qatar is due to the fact that it is a “country in transition, trying to embrace new opportunities while at the same time seeking to re-assert its conservative Muslim, Arab, Bedouin identity” (Rostron, 2009). This is problematic because the inadequate use of modern technologies and limited access to information have widened the gap between existing traditional and religious type of learning and modern educational systems (Bahgat, 1999). For example, in 2014, Nasser et al. compared the alignment of teacher-developed curricula with the National Standards provided by the Supreme Education Council (SEC) (now the MoE). Nasser et al., (2014) found that when planning lessons, many teachers in public schools state that they only “sometimes” use the Internet. This is backed by annual school surveys, conducted by the MoE, where seventy percent of students report “using computers in their classrooms on most days or more frequently” in a leading International School, as opposed to thirty eight percent in schools nationwide. This lack of use of technology can only contribute to a lack of engagement, particularly from Qatari boys, in a region that has “continued to be significantly below international averages” (Lee, 2016). As a result, Qatar’s National ICT Plan (2015), understands that “without a strong commitment for advancing ICT” their 2030 vision of creating an “advanced society capable of sustaining its own development” cannot be fully realised.

Twenty First Century Skills Integration

Today, employers in Qatar are in need of skilled professionals in the fields of technology in order to sustain the nation’s economic development (Al-Jaber & Dutta, 2008; Stasz et al., 2007). To address this need, Lee (2016) suggested that if policy makers want to improve both students’ engagement with school and learning outcomes, greater emphasis on the importance of learning needs to happen by developing a “more relevant 21st century curriculum” that grounds education in authentic experiences that students can see contributes to the development of their country in the long-run.

In an effort to address these issues and to develop a knowledge-based society, the Supreme Council of Information and Communication Technology (ictQATAR) was established in 2004 with the aim of creating an advanced information and communication technology infrastructure that promotes ICT in schools, therefore enhancing Qatar’s human capital (Nasser et al., 2014). The intention of the “e-education initiative” was to support teaching and learning by creating “flexible learning environments through technology” and “transform classrooms into global learning centers” (Al-Jaber and Dutta, 2008). By 2010, ninety eight percent of Qatari public schools had internet access, ninety three percent with broadband, and seventy one percent of K-12 teachers had received ICT training” (ictQATAR). The MoE states that they continue to “develop curriculum digital content for the K-12 schools” (ictQATAR) but standards for this cannot be located with the other published National Standards. Qatar needs to acknowledge that simply putting technology into schools is not enough; they need to move beyond the traditional ways of thinking about teaching and learning.

If literacy is no longer simply about words on a page and technology itself is a literacy, then teachers have to provide curriculum standards that directly address these skills. Qatar is at an advantage in that a diverse curricula is on offer in the international schools operating next door to its own public schools, many of which deliver a “technologically infused curriculum [that] develop multiple essential literacies” (Bedard & Fuhrken, 2013). Fifteen schools in the country, for example, offer one or more of The International Baccalaureate Organisation (IBO) programmes, all of which seek to “encourage students to become creative, critical and reflective thinkers” through the “development of skills for communication, intercultural understanding and global engagement”. The main aim of this curriculum framework is to develop “essential qualities for young people who are becoming global leaders” ("Principles into practice", 2017), directly addressing Qatar’s goal to drive a knowledge based global society.

In addition, there are a number of schools in Qatar that also offer the American Common Core Curriculum, which directly addresses ‘College and Career Readiness’ skills. In promoting ways to ‘Research to Build and Present Knowledge’ for example, standards require skills in gathering “relevant information from multiple print and digital sources” and through using “technology, including the Internet, to produce and publish writing and to interact and collaborate with others” (CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.CCRA.W.8 and W.6). Other standards specifically address skills for the ‘integration and presentation of knowledge and ideas’, by requiring learners to be able to “integrate and evaluate content presented in diverse media and formats” (CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.CCRA.R.7), as well as “make strategic use of digital media and visual displays of data to express information and enhance understanding of presentations” (CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.CCRA.SL.5). Any of these standards could be adopted into the Qatar public schools curriculum.

Equally, any curriculum can adopt the 21st Century Skills (P21.org, 2002) framework, which was founded to “create a successful model of learning for this millennium that incorporates 21st century skills into education” (Roblyer & Doering, 2013). To help educators “integrate skills into the teaching of core academic subjects, the Partnership has developed a unified, collective vision for learning” , which addresses specific “knowledge, skills, and expertise” that learners need to “succeed in work and life in the 21st century” (P21.org, 2002). A knowledge-based economy requires such opportunities for learners to communicate across a spectrum of formats and it is essential that learners be masters of technology as much as any other literacy if they are to operate in a digital world.

The Qatar National ICT Plan (2015) goes some way in addressing this need by seeking to enhance “digital literacy and develop the skills to enable innovation”. However, nowhere in the plan does the strategy address K12 education beyond “modernising learning spaces and promoting the use of ICT to enhance the learning experience”. Qatar National Standards do not directly address the use or development of such ICT skills in K12 schooling beyond one line in the Grade 10 English Advanced curriculum standards that states, “They [sic] use of common word processing software to plan, compose, edit and present writing” (SEC). Whilst there are over 300 international curriculum schools, little consultation takes place to use these diverse ways of teaching and learning to inform the ways the public schools of Qatar operate.


In Qatar, there are some technological and educational strategies and initiatives that seek to address the educational outcomes and gaps in K12 schools that jeopardise the aim of cultivating a knowledge-based sustainable economy. ictQATAR (2015) introduced an “awareness campaign promoting ICT at the K-12 and postsecondary levels” with a “sweeping K1-12 initiative to build a world-class public education system” where “ICT is an integral part of this transformation”. However, little evidence exists of the actual implementation of these initiatives in terms of standards within the public school system. A major factor may be that only three percent of Internet content is Arabic, despite it being the fifth most commonly spoken language in the world (ictQATAR, 2015). In addition, a lack of Arabic-based educational technology tools represents a major challenge for Public School teachers who are trying to integrate technology into their instruction (Karkouti, 2016).

Barriers in language may exacerbate the digital divide but evidence shows that access itself is not the issue when looking at Qatar. ictQATAR (2015) has a Digital Inclusion Strategy to address the digital divide in the nation, and has identified “target groups of people who are yet to understand the benefits of the Internet and ICT” including “young people with low ICT skills” (p.5). The strategy acknowledges that “technology is the way forward for the people of Qatar” as it “moves towards becoming a knowledge-based economy”, and it seeks to ensure that “all members of society have the ability to access the technologies and gain and understanding on how to use those technologies”. However, closing the digital divide alone is not enough to transform learning, and Qatar needs to ensure that all students understand how to use technology as a tool to engage in creative, productive, life-long learning.

Currently, educational policies present a “mismatch between traditional and modern education” (Bahgat, 1999) and this is, in some part, due to “cultural and religious norms that define all facets of people’s lives” (Breslin & Jones, 2010; Romanowski & Nasser, 2012; Rostron, 2009). However, ictQATAR is “committed to developing a digitally literate population” and addresses the need to “partner with educational institutions at all levels to develop relevant ICT curriculum” (p.26). At the same time however, Qatar is failing to address how its public school system should be the first port of call for these reforms to truly take shape.

Forty percent of the Arab Gulf region’s population is under the age of 15 (Lee, 2016). If their educational experiences are not readying them for the workforce, a huge proportion of the potential target will remain underprepared in terms of the policies, initiatives and reforms of Qatar. The availability of educational technology resources is not translating into technology integration in Qatar Public Schools, and teaching remains essentially traditional, where instruction is mainly teacher-centered focusing on developing students’ lower-order thinking skills (Wiseman & Anderson, 2012; Lee, 2016). Qatari students who express a desire to contribute to their society in the future, or at least understand the importance of country’s future development, are also more likely to be engaged with school and the learning process (Lee, 2016). Therefore, by forging stronger collaborative relationships with schools already versed in the use of twenty first century skills, the integration of various technology-infused curricula into the Public School system of Qatar could address these needs and create a curriculum that matches the vision of the future of the country in the development of the knowledge-based global workforce it seeks to cultivate.


Al-Jaber, H., & Dutta, S. (2008). Qatar: Leveraging technology to create a knowledge-based

       economy in the Middle East. Geneva, Switzerland: World Economic Forum.

Al-Sulayti, H. (1999). Education and Training in GCC Countries: Some Issues of Concern.

      Education and the Arab World: Challenges for the Next Millennium. Abu Dhabi,

UAE: The Emirates Centre for Strategic www.ccsenet.org/ies International Education

       Studies Vol. 7, No. 10; 2014 23 Studies and Research.

Bahgat, G. (1999). Education in the Gulf monarchies: Retrospect and prospect. International

       Review of Education, 45(2), 127-136. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1003610723356

Bedard, C., & Fuhrken, C. (2013). When writing with technology matters. Portland, MA:

       Stenhouse Publishers.

Bormann, F., & Lowe, K. (2010). ReKINDLING the fire: Using Kindles for literacy in the

       classroom. Literacy Learning: the Middle Years , 18 (3).

Breslin, J., & Jones, T. (2010). Qatar. In S. Kelly & J. Breslin (Eds.), Progress amid

       resistance: Women's rights in the Middle East and North Africa (pp. 397-424). Lanham, MD: 

       Freedom House.

Brewer, D. J., Augustine, C. H., Zellman, G. L., Ryan, G., Goldman, C. A., Stasz, C., &

Constant, L. (2007). Education for a new era: Design and implementation of K-12 education reform 

        in Qatar. Santa Monica, CA: www.sciedupress.com/ijhe International Journal of Higher 

        Education Vol. 5, No. 3; 2016 Published by Sciedu Press 189 ISSN 1927-6044 E-ISSN 1927-

        6052 RAND Corporation.

Bridging the digital divide: ictQATAR’s Digital Inclusion Strategy. (n.d.). Retrieved from



English Language Arts Standards » Anchor Standards » College and Career Readiness

        Anchor Standards for Reading. (n.d.). Retrieved from


Framework for 21st Century Learning. (n.d.). Retrieved from


From principles into practice. (2014, updated 2017). Retrieved from


Karkouti, I. M. (2016). Qatar's Educational System in the Technology-Driven Era: Long

        Story Short. International Journal Of Higher Education, 5(3), 182-189.

Lee, S. (2016). What Motivates and Engages Students in the Education Process--An

        Examination of Qatari Students' Mindset and Attitudes toward Going to School, Learning, and 

        Future Aspirations. Journal Of Education And Learning, 5(3), 220-235.

Ministry of Education and Higher Education - Schools List. (n.d.). Retrieved from


Nasser, R., Zaki, E., Allen, N., Al Mula, B., Al Mutawaha, F., Al Bin Ali, H., & Kerr, T.

        (2014). Alignment of Teacher-Developed Curricula and National Standards in Qatar's

        National Education Reform. International Education Studies, 7(10), 14-24.

Nazareno, L. (n.d.). Beyond compliance: Creating the schools our students need. Retrieved

         From https://www.teachingquality.org/beyond-compliance-creating-the-schools-our-student


Qatar’s National ICT Plan 2015: Advancing the Digital Agenda. (n.d.). Retrieved from



Roblyer, M., & Doering, A. H. (2013). Integrating educational technology into teaching (6th

        Edition ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Romanowski, M. H., & Nasser, R. (2012). Critical thinking and Qatar's education for a new

        era: Negotiating possibilities. International Journal of Critical Pedagogy, 4(1), 118-134.

Romanowski, M. H., & Amatullah, T. (2016). Applying Concepts of Critical Pedagogy to

        Qatar's Educational Reform. Critical Questions In Education, 7(2), 77-95.

Rostron, M. (2009). Liberal arts education in Qatar: Intercultural perspectives. Intercultural

        Education, 20(3), 219-229. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14675980903138517

Stasz, C., Eide, E. E., Martorell, F., Constant, L., Goldman, C. A., Moini, J. S., Nadareishvili,

         V., & Salem, H. (2007). Post-secondary education in Qatar: Employer demand, student choice,           
          and options for policy. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.

Stiglitz, J. (1999). Public policy of a knowledge economy. London: Department for Trade and

          Industry and the Center for Economic Policy Research

Supreme Education Council. (n.d.). اخر الأخبار. Retrieved from http://www.sec.gov.qa/

         English Standards: Advanced Grade 10

Weber, A. S. (2010). Web-based learning in Qatar and the GCC states. Doha, Qatar: Center

        for International and Regional Studies.

Wiseman, A. W., & Anderson, E. (2012). ICT-integrated education and national innovation

       systems in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries. Computers and Education, 59(2), 

       607-618. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.02.006

15 June 2018

Global Readiness: Is Curriculum Preparing our Learners? MYP, 21C Partnership and ISTE Comparison

Standards Comparison for Global Readiness

Education today must be more than the subject we teach; it is no longer enough to think we can simply act as the sage on the stage to deliver and impart our ‘wisdom ‘to learners. This is especially important to bear in mind if we want to educate a generation who will be able to compete in a global market. Crucially, we need to engage, excite, and redefine learning, and facilitate our students in gaining specific-subject skills, as well as crucial life-long skills that will allow them to compete in an ever-expanding global society. This paper examines the extent to which subject-specific curriculum standards address other crucial aspects that prepare learners for the global workforce. It compares them with 21st Century Partnership Skills and also with ISTE Standards to weigh up the extent to which each addresses global perspectives, global citizenship and global collaboration.

Standards Selection

The International Baccalaureate Organisation (IBO) Middle Years Programme (MYP) is a framework that aims to support learners in making “connections between their studies in traditional subjects and the real world” (2017). Through the “development of skills for communication, intercultural understanding and global engagement”, the programme “encourages students to become creative, critical and reflective thinkers” (2017), which the MYP considers as “essential qualities for young people who are becoming global leaders” (2017). Ten essential learn profile attributes form the core of the programme, and the framework is underpinned by a conceptual approach to learning, where units are planned using one of six possible global contexts and subject related concepts. Eight subject group areas are studied, for which each has a set of subject-specific standards. All units are tied together by five Approaches to Learning skills that transcend subjects: Thinking, Social, Self-Management, Communication, and Research. Similarly, 21st Century Partnership (21C) Skills comprise life-long interdisciplinary skills that span all subjects, whilst ISTE standards for Students (2016) focus on essential technology-based skills that prepare learners to be part of a digital workforce. In regards the MYP curriculum standards, this comparison examines both the Year 1 (Grade 6) Language and Literature (LAL) standards and the Approaches to Learning (ATL) skills, as both are required for meeting the requirements for an MYP unit. There are a total of fifteen MYP LAL standards and five main ATL categories in ten sub-categories with over 150 standards in total therefore, the three global areas of citizenship, perspectives, and collaboration have been used to focus the selection. One relevant standard for each of these three global areas has been selected from both sets of MYP standards along with comparable standards from both the 21Century and the ISTE Standards for Students. In this respect, an all-rounded approach necessary for a global education has been considered, addressing skills that are subject specific, life-long interdisciplinary, and technological.

Standards Comparison

Using the lens of the three global areas helped focus the comparison in terms of global readiness and defined how to select relevant, appropriate standards. In some cases, it would have been possible to choose more than one relevant strand but, for equity, only one per programme was selected. A notable exception to this is in the area of global collaboration, where there is no specific strand in the MYP LAL standards that addresses this explicitly. A summary of the comparison of the selected standards is shown in Table 1.

Global Citizenship. For both the MYP LAL and ATL standards, the focus for an understanding of global citizenship comes from an emphasis on ensuring learners are able to use accurate citations. In a cut and paste society, where many learners do not fully comprehend the notion of plagiarism, it is crucial that we address this directly in our teaching. In English lessons, LAL and ATL strands can be utilised when teaching presentation skills in terms of the use of information, which ties in with both the standards selected from the 21C and ISTE. Many learners are simply not aware that copying and pasting both information and images is ethical and legally wrong. In bringing an awareness and understanding of this, we also have an obligation to teach them how to ensure they are using citations accurately, which the MYP LAL and ATL standards address. The IB Learner Profile (IB LP) attribute of being ‘principled’, so as to act with integrity, is also relevant here.

Table 1

Comparison of a Selection of Standards addressing Global Citizenship, Global Perspectives, and Global Collaboration between the Middle Years Programme, 21st Century Partnership and ISTE Standards for Students

Area of Comparison
Middle Years Programme

21st Century Partnership

ISTE Standards for Students
Standards Comparison in Brief
Language & Literature
Year 1
Approaches to Learning
Global Citizenship
B: Organising iii
Use referencing and formatting tools to create a presentation style suitable to the context and intention
Research: IV Information Literacy
Create references and citations, use footnotes/endnotes and construct a bibliography according to recognized conventions
Information Literacy
Possessing a fundamental understanding of the ethical/legal issues surrounding the access and use of information
Digital Citizenship 2c
Demonstrate an understanding of and respect for the rights and obligations of using and sharing intellectual property.
MYP LAL and MYP ATL: Emphasis on ensuring accurate citation and use of this information using conventions
21C and ISTE: Emphasis on need for an understanding of ethical and legal use of information
Global Perspectives
C: Producing Text i
Produce texts that demonstrate thought and imagination while exploring new perspectives and ideas arising from personal engagement with the creative process
Thinking: X Transfer
Inquire in different contexts to gain a different perspective
Media Literacy
Examining how individuals interpret messages differently, how values and points of view are included or excluded and how media can influence beliefs and behaviors
Creative Communicator 6c
Publish or present content that customizes the message and medium for their intended audiences
ALL: Focus on thinking about other differing perspectives, what influences those beliefs - either personal experiences or external factors - and how different audiences may interpret the same information
Global Collaboration
Social: II Collaborative
Use social media networks appropriately to build and develop relationships
Social and Cross-Cultural Skills
Bridging cultural differences and using differing perspectives to increase innovation and the quality of work
Global Collaborator 7b
Use collaborative technologies to work with others, including peers, experts or community members, to examine issues and problems from multiple viewpoints
MYP LAL: Limited; no specific LAL standard relates to collaboration
MYP ATL: This specifically addresses the use of social media
21C and ISTE: focus is on using differences in experiences that arise from global collaboration through technology to increase quality of work

Global Perspectives. This is the area in which all four sets of standards are in closest agreement. All four focus on the need to teach learners an awareness of the fact that there are many differing perspectives in the world. In addition, the standards all address a need for learners to think about factors that influence those beliefs - albeit from personal experiences or external factors such as media bias. In addition to this, in terms of the creation of texts, which is a focus in English, we must explicitly teach children that different audiences will bring different experiences and perceptions to their interpretations of a text, which can result in many differing understandings of the same information. Issues of bias, misinformation, different belief systems, and extent of global experiences are crucial here. This can be a delicate matter in some classrooms and educators must think carefully about ensuring that all voices are heard and considered. In an MYP classroom, bringing in the IB LP attribute of being ‘open-minded’ helps ensure that students understand the need to think about and acknowledge differing perspectives, which may sometime be ones they are not entirely comfortable with.

Global Collaboration. Collaboration is an essential skill and one I emphasise in my classroom every day; it came as somewhat of a revelation then, when I realised that there is actually no specific MYP LAL strand that directly addresses this skill. However, when designing a unit in the MYP framework, teachers never simply use the subject-specific standards. ATL skills must also be used and, therefore, any task can be collaborative if the teacher deems it necessary for the class and/or task. Indeed, whilst there is no one LAL standard for collaboration, there are in fact fourteen specific ATL strands, as part of the Social ATL. The selected standard for this comparison relates to the use of social media, which can be used for global collaboration between classrooms and can be utilised in the English classroom in creating, sharing, and discussing texts via blogs, eBooks, Google Drive, Twitter, and Skype, to take learning and conversations beyond the walls of the classroom. These tools tie in directly with the 21C and ISTE standards for global collaboration. The focus is on using differences in experiences and perspectives that arise from global collaboration through the use of technology, with the specific intent to broaden understanding and increase the collective quality of work produced. Interestingly, through completing this comparison, I have also realised that not one of the ten IB LP attributes address collaboration or creativity, which are, inarguably, crucial skills in today’s world.


In terms of global citizenship, the 21C and ISTE strands focus on developing and understanding of when to use citations and why there is a need to do, whilst the MYP strand focus is on the means to do so accurately. However, they all complement each – the when, the why, with the how. All four sets of standards are in agreement that, when learning to be an effective global citizen, students must both understand the need to cite, as well as methods to do this accurately. The area of comparison with most congruence is that of global perspectives. Having this awareness is an everyday occurrence in an international classroom but may not be something that educators with limited global awareness or experience in international situations may consider. Therefore, strands that address this requirement are crucial in training the next generation to be open-minded in terms of the myriad global perspectives they may face in future employment. The focus on collaborative understanding resulting in improved quality of work is a very interesting frame with which to view the outcome of global collaboration. Hargadon (1999) found that “teams often create novel and unexpected combinations of knowledge in ways that individuals could not” (Kim, Lee, D., Lee, Y., Huang, & Makany, 2011) because individuals within a team have to have the ability “to utilize others’ knowledge as well as develop their own” (Bhappu et al., 2001; Griffith and Neale, 2001; in Kim et al, 2011). Extending this thinking globally exposes us to many differences in the way individuals think and respond to common tasks. The idea that learners can ‘pool’ their skills is crucial; our learners will unlikely be working in isolation in their future employment and indeed, Johnson and Johnson (1986) suggest that there is “persuasive evidence that people in cooperative teams often achieve and demonstrate higher levels of critical thinking while retaining information longer than people who work as individuals” (Gokhale,1995). When learners use their individual intelligences to think critically and to figure out for themselves the how and the why, that is when the collective kicks in, that is when we see “groups of individuals doing things collectively that seem intelligent” (Kim et al, 2011). These communicative intents are the building blocks of the individual’s intelligence, “the aggregate or global capacity of the individual to act purposefully, to think rationally and to deal effectively with his environment” (Kim et al, 2011). This is the least we owe our learners - learning experiences designed to facilitate in fostering an individual capability and intelligence within a broader perspective and awareness that will allow them to develop and be ready to operate as successful global citizens.


21st Century Skills Map for English. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.p21.org/our-work/resources/for-educators#SkillsMaps

ISTE Standards for STUDENTS. (2016). Retrieved from https://www.iste.org/standards/for-students

Kim, P., Lee, D., Lee, Y., Huang, C., & Makany, T. (2011). Collective intelligence ratio.

Team Performance Management: An International Journal,17(1/2), 41-62. doi:10.1108/13527591111114701

Language and literature guide. (2014, updated 2017). Retrieved from https://ibpublishing.ibo.org/

MYP: From principles into practice. (2014, updated 2017). Retrieved from https://ibpublishing.ibo.org/

Gokhale, A. A. (1995). Collaborative Learning Enhances Critical Thinking. Journal of Technology Education,7(1). doi:10.21061/jte.v7i1.a.2