Control Systems and Computers, N5, 2020, Article 1

https://doi.org/10.15407/csc.2020.05.003

Control Systems and Computers, 2020, Issue 5 (289), pp. 3-16.

UDC 303.721;004.03142

Grіtsenko Volodymyr I., Corresponding Member of the Ukrainian academy of sciences, Director, International Research and Training Center for Information Technologies and Systems of the NAS and MES of Ukraine, Glushkov ave., 40, Kyiv, 03187, Ukraine, E-mail: vig@irtc.org.ua, 
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6250-3987,

Kudriavtseva Svitlana P., PhD in Technical Sciences, Leading researcher, International Research and Training Center for Information Technologies and Systems of the NAS and MES of Ukraine, Glushkov ave., 40, Kyiv, 03187, Ukraine, E-mail: svetaa@irtc.org.ua,

Synytsya Kateryna M., PhD in Technical Sciences,  Deputy Director on Research, International Research and Training Center for Information Technologies and Systems of the NAS and MES of Ukraine, Glushkov ave., 40, Kyiv, 03187, Ukraine, E-mail: ksynytsya@irtc.org.ua

Learning Task Models in the Context of Education for
Sustainable Development

Introduction. The sustainable development concept lies in the core of the UNESCO Global Program, in which education is considered as a way for developing competencies (which are) necessary to achieve specific sustainable development goals (SDGs).  Education for sustainable development (ESD) is based on the implementation of the concept of life-long, high-quality and inclusive learning, which implies the creation of conditions for the learning and development of each member of society and the possibility of acquiring the competencies necessary in a knowledge society.  Providing quality lifelong learning opportunities for all learners at all levels and in all learning communities is the foundation for better lives and sustainable development.  The content and means of ESD implementation differ significantly across the globe due to variety in socio-economic conditions, way of life and the level of technological development of countries and regions, therefore, it is important to analyze the general features of ESD and the characteristics of the educational environment to support ESD.

Purpose. To study how the ideas of sustainable development can be incorporated into the learning content and the instructional process by integrating digital didactics methods, knowledge structuring, and digital technologies.  To show by applying a task-based approach, that support for performing the tasks of learning, instruction (teaching) and dialogue in an open learning environment is crucial for achieving the SDGs.

Methods: Systems approach, problem theory, problem approach, generalizations.

Results: It is demonstrated how lifelong learning, as a basis for the implementation of ESD, and access to knowledge in the digital age can contribute to the achievement of the SDGs.  The features of the tasks of teaching, learning and interaction for achieving the SDGs in education have been investigated, the corresponding task models have been formulated.  The requirements for the functionality and technologies of an open learning environment which allows learners to achieve the set of goals when solving learning problems in the framework of ESD are described.

Conclusion. The results of this research show that education should be considered as both an independent goal (SDG4) and a means to achieve all the SDGs.  It is not only an integral part but also a key factor for sustainable development in terms of achieving the SDGs, which requires consideration of learning tasks other than traditional ones. There is a need for a learner to develop skills for independent search and critical assessment of information, participation in planning and management of one’s own learning, as well as skills for interaction and communication with other actors in the process of solving new problems. Mastering of these meta-skills is associated with training procedures, the impact of which is increased in the course of interaction between the student and the open learning environment. At the same time, the instructional (training, teaching) task determines the creation of a personal environment for performing the learning task, which facilitates the development of learners’ key competencies in the field of sustainable development, which is necessary to achieve any of the SDGs.

Download full text! (In English).

Keywords: new educational paradigm, digital technologies for teaching and learning, sustainable development goals, digital didactic, education for sustainable development, learning environment. 

  1. UNESCO General Conference, 40th, 2019, Approved programme and budget 2020-2021: second biennium of the 2018-2021 quadrennium, Major Programme Education, pp.21-58.
  2. Education 2030: Incheon Declaration and Framework for Action for the implementation of Sustainable Development Goal 4. Programme and meeting document, 2016, 86p. [online]. Available at: <https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000245656>.
  3. SDG 4: Education: Global Education Monitoring Report. [online]. Available at: <https://en.unesco.org/gem-report/sdg-goal-4> [Accessed 11 Sept. 2020].
  4. Faure, E. 2013 Learning to be. The world of education today and tomorrow. Report of the International Commission on the Development of Education, UNESCO, Paris, 2nd ed., 314 p.
  5. Delors, J. et al.. 1996. Learning: The treasure within. UNESCO, Paris. 266 p.
  6. Education for Sustainable Development Goals – Learning Objectives, UNESCO, 2017, 62 p. [online]. Available at: <https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000247444.page=23> [Accessed 11 Sept. 2020].
  7. Boström, M., Andersson, E., Berg, M., et al., 2018. Conditions for transformative learning for sustainable development: A theoretical review and approach. Sustainability, 10(12), p.4479. 21 p., 
    https://doi.org/10.3390/su10124479
  8. Wals, A.E.J. & F. Lenglet, 2016. “Sustainability citizens: collaborative and disruptive social learning”. In: R. Horne, J. Fien, B.B. Beza & A. Nelson (Eds.) Sustainability Citizenship in Cities: Theory and Practice. London: Earthscan, pp. 52-66.
  9. Synytsya, K.M., 2017. “E-Learning Models Analysis for Lifelong Learning”, Cybernetics and Computer Engineering, No 4 (190) pp. 19-32, DOI: https://doi.org/10.15407/kvt190.04.019
  10. Jung, I., Latchem C., 2012. Quality Assurance and Accreditation in Distance Education and e-Learning Models, Policies and Research, 310 p.
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203834497
  11.  Frydenberg, J., 2002. “Quality standards in eLearning: A matrix of analysis”. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 3, (2).
    https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v3i2.109
  12. Ceobanu, C., Roxana C., and Asandului L., 2009. “A theoretical framework for quality indicators in elearning”. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education 10, no.4: pp. 126-135.
  13. Afreen, R., 2014. “Bring your own device (BYOD) in higher education: Opportunities and challenges”. International Journal of Emerging Trends & Technology in Computer Science, 3(1), pp. 233-236.
  14. Hoque, M.E., 2016. “Three domains of learning: cognitive, affective and psychomotor”. The Journal of EFL Education and Research, 2 (2), pp. 45-52
  15. Dovgyallo, A.M., 1981. Dialogue between the user and the computer. Basics of design and implementation, Kyiv, Naukova Dumka, 231 p. (In Russian)
  16.  Leal Filho, W., Mifsud, M., Pace, P. eds., 2018. Handbook of lifelong learning for sustainable de-velopment. Springer International Publishing, 376 p.
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-63534-7
  17. Gritsenko, V.I., Manako, A.F., Synytsya, K.M., 2018. “E-Transformation in Learning”, Control Systems and Computers, 1 (273), pp. 3-15. (In Russian)
    https://doi.org/10.15407/usim.2018.01.003
  18. Mishra, S., 2017. Open educational resources: removing barriers from within. Distance education 38 (3), pp. 369-380.
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2017.1369350
  19. Pilli, O., Admiraal, W., 2016. “A Taxonomy of Massive Open Online Courses”, Contemporary Educational technology, 7(3), pp. 223-240.
    https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/6174
  20. Bates, A.W. Teaching in a Digital Age. Guidelines for teaching and learning, 2nd Edition. [online]. Available at: <https://pressbooks.bccampus.ca/teachinginadigitalagev2/>.
  21. Clara, M., 2017. “How instruction influences conceptual development: Vygotsky’s theory revisited”. Educational Psychologist, 52(1), pp. 50-62.
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2016.1221765
  22. Rallis, S.F., Rossman, G.B., 2000. “Dialogue for learning: Evaluator as critical friend”. New Directions for Evaluation, 86, pp. 81-92.
    https://doi.org/10.1002/ev.1174
  23. Normadhi, N.B.A., Shuib, L., Nasir, H.N.M., Bimba, A., Idris, N., Balakrishnan, V., 2019. Identification of personal traits in adaptive learning environment: Systematic literature review. Computers & Education, 130, pp.168-190.
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.11.005
  24. Kay, J. and Kummerfeld, B., 2019. “From data to personal user models for life‐long, life‐wide learners”. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(6), pp.2871-2884.
    https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12878
  25. Tarus, J., Niu, Z., Khadidja, B., 2017. “E-learning recommender system based on collaborative filtering and ontology”. International Journal of Computer and Information Engineering, 11(2), pp. 256-261.
  26. Dabbagh, N., Castaneda, L., 2020. “The PLE as a framework for developing agency in lifelong learning”. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68(6), pp., 3041-3055.
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09831-z

Received 25.10.20