Redesigning and recomputing the future of education: The role of technology,the learning process,personality traits,and diversity in learning systems

Abstract

The main actor in the learning process is the learner. The concept of “learner” goes beyond the educational level. The new reality in the educational environment presents challenges for the learning process, which mainly concern the adoption of new technologies in that process. The purpose of this commentary is to try to outline the future of education, taking into account the efforts of learners, the needs of the learning process, as well as the advantages and disadvantages of providing knowledge through technology. We argue that education and technology are not two separate vague and autonomous elements that suddenly sprouted into being. Humankind shapes the development of education and contributes to the evolution of technology, its management, and application in education. Diversity in the learning needs of individuals regarding new technologies is the main discussion of this commentary, while the application of social ecology is considered as a necessary element to ensure equality in, and the sustainability of, education. Educational leadership has a key role to play in social ecology. Leadership in education must be supportive and, most importantly, facilitate the liberation of the learning process from the limited and negatively biased perception of different social values.

Keywords

learner learning process educational leadership new technologies diversity and technology in education

Introduction

The new global dynamic of accommodating a digital literacy reality in different systems of delivery, including in learning systems following the pandemic, leaves no room for one to ignore new challenging and opportunities in the development of educational systems. A question arises: are we¹ giving into or exercising our agency on how this can look like in the future? The deep intrinsic value of the role of education in the sustainability of decent society remains an important and non-negotiable element, as are the principle of respect, trust, dignity, and access (equal opportunities). These intrinsic values constitute the primary goals of education. Within this context, the value of education as a balancing factor in the development of societies and the engagement of students with changing values and learning styles, over time as socio-cultural, political, or ecological context requires, is perhaps the most important factor of social change while at the same time it further enhances the important role of education in successfully dealing with social change and social problems. In the analysis of educational policy, social problems must be clear so that they can be dealt with seriously, transparently and, most importantly, prudently. So, do education systems anticipate and successfully meet specific requirements of this new reality? The answer is probably no. And this is not due to a lack of the necessary will but, due to the uncertainty of the future, it is not possible for the demands of a new reality to be specified. Technological changes are unpredictable and at the same time have too many complexities. While this is a fact, it should not be accepted as a predisposed condition but interrogated, and this is where significant philosophical issues present themselves, that is, the tensions between competing values, assumptions, and alignment.

Developments in the social environment are continuous and unpredictable and this uncertainty must be accounted for in educational planning for the future enhancement of education systems and their impact on the human condition. Based on our lived experience, education, and community leadership, it is true that an education system or educational institutions may not be able to meet all their mandates successfully under the existing frames of inquiry and institutional structure. Discipline is crucial for the prosperity and sustainability of the value of education in future societies, but the tension between discipline and imagination must be negotiated as we push the boundaries of knowledge, technology, and development in a sustainable manner.

In addition, uncertainty may be a given element, but so is the orientation of education, which is for the benefit of society itself. For this reason, there can be no room for stratification in the learning process. On the contrary, encouraging greater and more open access to the educational process is key. The fundamental question, then, is how a learning model can be combined with both strong social and technological elements? Technological developments help to open up the learning process in terms of access to education. Therefore, in this paper we explored how technology contributes to the learning processes to best meet diverse students' needs in our learning systems. As instructors in the academy we examine the current dynamic of shifting to digital technology in the current knowledge era from social and critical lens. Thus, we emphasize that if education has consolidated its important role in society, then technology will take its rightful place in this relationship. We argue is that education and technology are not two separate vague and autonomous elements that suddenly sprouted into a reality. Human shapes the development of education (and education systems) and human contributes to the evolution of technology, its management, and application in education.

Human nature in this new reality has gone through a phase called “Antropocene” and it means that problems, due to their complexity, at all levels, are not easy to find solutions. We have adopted the term “Anthropocene” from the literature (Brigman and Lewis, 2017; Da Veiga, 2017; Salite et al., 2021) related to sustainable development, and what it implies is the human effort to maintain its value. The Anthropocene era began when human ceased to consider his responsibility for shaping a reality in social ecology. This new era requires commitment to collectivity (Da Veiga, 2017; Szeluga-Romańska, Kostera & Modzelewska, 2020; Mintzberg and Laasch, 2020), redefining human responsibility, a humanitarian approach to problems, and the development of communication networks.

In particular, in the philosophical and sociological approach of the relationship between technology and education, Reeves (1998), Cuban (2009), Selwyn and Facer (2014) stressed that the teacher has the primary responsibility for technology in education, so as not to lead to a dead end. They pointed out that technology is a cognitive tool and thus can contribute to the development of learners' critical thinking. From this perspective, responsibility is the key word for the place and role of technology in the educational and learning process. The main responsibility for the learning process, the involvement of the learner and the positive development of communication networks, lies with the teacher. To be clear, we are not saying that the teacher has the responsibility that determines the self-determination and the responsibility of the learner. But How does education, and how do educational leaders be developed? Our view is that only through education and the learning process. Thus, placing the teacher as the mediating tool between learner, technology, and action, that is, the possibility of what we can create for the common good. The development of our biological contribution to cognition then meets a tool that will catapult us into a different space for meaning making (Maturana and Varela, 1992).

Dewey (2015) suggests training the mind can be empowering because those who think, and have the thinking tools to learn how to learn can, make evidence informed, logical, moral, and ethical choices for the future, not based on the knowledge that is absent, but on tried and tested empirical, indigenous knowledges, and theories of change. Young people’s ability to predict how to act with confidence, when knowledge is absent or fake, will get stronger if they practice developing logic models and change processes that employ the test of life for proof of concept as part of their personal learning with others in a social context.

This commentary is the result of the experiences, reflections, and in-depth discussions of the three authors on issues related to equality, inclusion, and new technologies in the meaning making, learning, and knowledge construction process. Our main goal is to highlight proposals on how the adoption of new technologies in the learning process can contribute in a substantial way to the satisfaction of different learning needs while ensuring equality and quality in education and educational leadership. For the purpose of this conversation we use educational leadership as a working concept within the socio-cultural and political space of education and not a position. The utility to this term includes knowledge of the craft of education, the context both relational and structure, and the willingness to exercise one’s agency for the public good within a sustainable development framework. This educational leadership can come from a classroom teacher, manager, community member, parent, or stakeholders with the local ecology and beyond, that is, policymakers. This commentary highlights important questions that lay the groundwork for the need to realize that decisions to educate and ensure the sustainability of a quality, equitable, and inclusive learning process must be the result of social interests and social accountability.

The purpose of this commentary is to analyze the relationship between learners, teachers, the needs of the learning process, as well as the advantages and disadvantages of providing knowledge through technology. In this commentary we will try to give a profile of the future of education.

Questions to consider as we weave through the topics, concerns and issues to follow:

(1) What was the impact of COVID-19 conditions and the technological impact in the future of education, educational leadership, and human learning systems?

(2) How does education navigate the technological and human/living systems of learning for the building of sustainable communities?

(3) What are the key issues that should be included in the discussion on the future of education?

(4) Are there suitable conditions for shaping a sustainable educational future? And if so, what are these conditions?

Technology and the human dimension

According to the relevant literature (An and Oliver, 2021; Dusek, 2006; Selwyn and Facer, 2014), technology and its evolution are an integral part of human skills and abilities. As such, technology can facilitate social development (Monod, 1991). The discovery of various elements and ways that help in the development of knowledge but also its dissemination, such as writing and printing, are important human achievements that are not limited only to human abilities. They are a chain of human skills and knowledge accumulated over generations. These achievements are the basis for the dissemination of knowledge today. Technological advances in dissemination have evolved and transformed over the years. As a result, in the 20th century there was a huge explosion of new technologies and means of communication worldwide (McLuhan and Powers, 1989). The dissemination and development of knowledge has transcended humankind up to the present day and has become, for the most part, a mechanistic process.

There is, therefore, a mechanistic dimension to the learning process, which shapes a different student–teacher relationship environment. The mechanistic dimension largely represents the learning process with a tendency for human nature to enter a post-human phase. The key element of this mechanistic approach is the emphasis on the teachers’ thorough understanding of how the educational objectives are to be met through this process. This is because individuals find it difficult to internalize and realize any changes for two main reasons. There are both perceptual and cognitive limitations (and process). Therefore, the aim is to make teachers aware of the promotion of research and the share of responsibility that belongs to technology. What we are saying is that, given the ever-evolving mechanistic educational system and the constraints mentioned above, the focus should not be on how to manage technology as a cognitive tool, but on how research will go into education DNA (Oliver and Gourlay, 2018). Hence, regarding the revisiting and change in educational reality, the problem is to where the emphasis is given. Thus, the process is static, critical, dynamic-critical (Author 3a, 2016).

The above, however, is just one side of the story regarding educational technology. Based on the philosophy of technology, technology itself cannot be considered in isolation, focusing only on how new technologies will be grouped, in order to be more effective in the implementation of the educational process. The relationship between education and technology is quite deep and pervasive in the educational and learning process. As such, if the relationship between them changes, then the relationship between the individual and society is subsequently affected. There is, therefore, an interdependent relationship between the triptych: individual, technology, and education/knowledge.

If we understand the importance of this relationship, then the educational and learning process will reap all the benefits of educational technology while digital pedagogy will become more effective. The cognitive process is a relational and communicative process between the learner and the teacher. Hence, the stimulus is at the heart of learning. Knowledge provides the orientation of value while it is related to perception. Perspectives and attitudes are not only determined through external stimuli but also have their basis on internal elements and stimuli that affect existing perceptions. This interiority is a communicative goal but also largely determines the cognitive structure of the individual because the cognitive process follows perception. Therefore, understanding the relationship between learning and the teacher and how this relationship leads to a constructive cognitive process is fundamental to education.

Educational technology and the student are not two separate elements. Knowledge is co-constructed, biological, cognitive, and symbiotic within the construct of a dynamic-critical pedagogy. In addition, technology is not just a means to an end in the learning process. During the learning process, technology becomes one with (i.e., is integrated into) the student’s ecology, resulting in learning. This perception differentiates the role of technology in learning and suggests that its role in the learning process is more active than passive. The relationship between the learning process and technology is not passive but is reciprocal and dynamic. When re-framing or re-considering technology, the whole discussion about the relationship between technology and education should be re-designed with an orientation that is holistic, dynamic-critical, and does not focus on individual stagnant dimensions or outputs. Once this is established, then technology will be able to facilitate the advancement of the educational and learning process to another level, to a more desirable state of knowledge construction for the common good.

Based on the above, the following questions come to mind:

1. What are the critical and necessary outputs/products of an effective digital pedagogy, and to what ends?

2. What is the core responsibility of an effective digital pedagogy?

3. What is the emerging conversation around the issue of digital pedagogy within your culture and local ecology?

4. What are the socio-cultural and political forces guiding the discussion about the relationship between technology and education within your set of circumstances?

The function of the learning process

The COVID-19 pandemic inevitably transformed the educational environment into a new reality with a strong mechanistic-technological element. This forced change has created challenges in the educational community, which are related to the learning process (An and Oliver, 2021; Author 1 and 2, 2021; Author 1a, 2021; Littlejohn et al., 2021). Although this seemed to be a temporary thing for the smooth continuation of the educational and learning process, it seems that there is a tendency for greater adoption of technology in the learning process. The focus, therefore, is on HOW we will manage the new reality, so that there are no one-dimensional perceptions, which will affect the performance and impact of technology.

In the previous section we mentioned the perceptions about the relationship between technology and education and suggested that the impact of the positive impact depends on how it is managed and on the perception of this relationship. However, no matter how we perceive this relationship, we should not forget that the human factor cannot be substituted and educational organizations are learning organizations, while learning is linked to human being. This means that we cannot be content with just the advancement of technology and be assured that everything will go smoothly in the educational process. Technology and its development is a human achievement, but its use is also a human process, while the relationship between technology and education is determined only by the human. Therefore, whether technology has an active or passive role in the learning process, learning is still a communication process. Technology is inserted between the teacher and the learner and this has the effect that the interpersonal relationship develops indirectly.

Putting the learner first

Human remains the main regulator of the relationship between education and technology²; however, with the intervention of technology, human changes to “technological man” (Jones, 2014). Within the framework of mechanistic approach³, the use of technology in the educational process has a limited interaction as the learning process is standardized to a large extent, while educational software is usually selected according to the needs of educational programs and not according to the needs of learners not the local context for development. Hence, what are the dynamic-critical conditions for effective learning to take place? The learning needs of each person can vary considerably. Like all approaches, the mechanistic approach to the learning process has both advantages and disadvantages. Based on the literature (Author 1a, 2021; Gibson and Ifenthaler 2017; Lai, 2018; Wilson, 1995, etc.) the advantages of this learning approach can be summarized as follows: (a) there is a continuous flow of educational modules that facilitate a swift transfer of knowledge, (b) due to the speed and continuous flow of this cognitive information, the pluralism of views is enhanced, and (c) vigilance in the learning process improves the levels of motivation to deepen educational knowledge. The construction of the perceived intervention is unidirectional and not reciprocal and certainly not symbiotic nor relational. This disadvantage limits the knowledge base of the learners and is a major cause for stratification in knowledge. Stratification in knowledge is related to ensuring the equality and unity of knowledge. Knowledge does not have levels that are shaped by learning needs, because if that happens then we will have a split in equality in education. Education is the conduit of democracy and this means that learning must be inclusive, collective and sustainable (Apple et al., 2022; Biesta et al., 2022). In this context, the stratification of knowledge has no place, nor the construction of knowledge and imagination have borders and constraints.

An additional element that reinforces stratification in knowledge and in the educational process in general, is the gradation in the study rate. The educational process is related to equality and especially to what Apple et al. (2022: 3) calls “civic courage.” In other words, the emphasis in the educational process is on the human being. Therefore, education either as knowledge or as a process (planning, implementation, harvesting) has the same democratic rules. The gradation, hence, is due to differences in the needs related to learning styles and of course creates an imbalance (power dynamic) in the functioning of the learning process. The wide spectrum of learners’ individual personalities creates inequalities in the learning process since their participation varies. At this point one could argue that even in a learning process with a less mechanistic approach, some students may still not participate fully. However, it is not the same thing. This is because teaching with a less mechanistic (and ecologically congruent) approach allows for greater interaction with the learner, something that can enhance the learner’s self-confidence and thus strengthen their effective participation. In a learning process with a mechanistic approach, human interaction is very muted. Finally, a disadvantage of the mechanistic approach is the cost of using the necessary technological tools in the learning process. The economic aspect associated with this learning style is likely to exacerbate inequalities in terms of access to learning and (participation, engagement, equipment and thus, information and) knowledge.

In order to understand the concept of technology integration in the student as well as the active role of technology in the learning process, we must first understand what critical digital literacy is. The concept of literacy includes information and knowledge. Digital literacy transcends the boundaries of traditional learning (transmission and analysis of information by the teacher) (Hafner et al., 2015; Jones, 2014; Martin and Grudziecki 2006). In the case of digital literacy, the learner finds the information or indicates it to the teacher and the learner must understand it him/herself but also use it him/herself (Glister, 1997). In this context, digital literacy enables the application of technology in learning and, in essence, drives the learner to independent or autonomous learning.

Independent or autonomous learning presupposes responsibility and has its roots in critical digital literacy, which is a process of processing and analyzing the functional role and design of digital literacy. In this process, which concerns not only the learner but also the teachers and educational leaders, the personal beliefs and perceptions of the individuals certainly play a role. However, critical digital literacy includes critical analysis which is based both on a more internal search for purpose and empowerment through technology and on a more external analysis (Luke, 2000). Internal analysis is more related to the functional use of technology, while external analysis is related to the social interaction of technology with society and the understanding of the relationship between technology and power dynamics (Green, 1988; Hinrichsen and Coombs, 2014). While we will not go further into the analysis of the discourse that mainly concerns critical digital literacy, we must point out that it is the basis for independent or autonomous learning. As the learning process involves critical processing (Green, 1988), critical digital literacy helps the individual to acquire an active role in the cognitive structure, which is a prerequisite for independent or autonomous learning.

Independent learning has become a key tool in the learning process and most education systems seek to integrate autonomous or independent learning into the system. However, empirical evidence reveals learners' reluctance to engage in this type of learning process in their choice of learning (Waks, 2016). Independent learning presupposes that the learner has the responsibility for learning, knows what he/she wants to learn, and how he/she want to learn it (Hockings et al., 2018) but this raises the question as to whether the learner, especially at a young age, has the ability to assume responsibility for their learning without a teacher’s direction. Will the learning process, without the teacher at the forefront, be an endless adventure? The questions posed do not imply that the learning process should be inelastic and that the teacher should be the master of learning. On the contrary, the searching and the experience gained in the learning process are elements of progressive education that must play a leading role in learning, while progressive education and pedagogy is directly related to innovation in education and the integration of learning in the development of the learner. What we are saying is that, in the plethora of information and knowledge that exists in the educational reality of today, the teacher still has a key role to play. However, that role must be as harmonious as it is essential, so that the positive attributes of human nature can flourish.

With reference to the autonomous learning, the type of this learning process has a self-regulatory character (Benson, 2011; Jones, 2014; Zimmerman, 2002). The manifestation of the desire to adopt autonomous learning as a dominant process does not appear anywhere in empirical studies for any level of education, nor is there any record of an education system based on the preferences of learners that has implemented autonomous learning as compulsory (Schleicher, 2019). In view of the above, a question arises regarding the quality of learning in education. In an autonomous learning process, the learner can create and develop knowledge in subjects that interest him/her. The teacher does not impose knowledge but instead has a mentoring and advisory role concerning knowledge development. In an independent learning process the learner can engage with his/her studies without the advice and guidance of the teacher. The two are connected. The learner can evaluate the teacher’s direction and advice without losing his/her autonomy. After all, this is progressive education in which the teacher motivates to search and create.

Based on the above, both autonomous and independent learning are based on the self-determination theory of Deci and Ryan (1991), since as Deci et al. (1991: 325) reported that the application of self-determination theory in education is directly related “primarily with promoting in students an interest in learning, a valuing of education, and a confidence in their own capacities and attributes.” In both autonomous and independent learning, the learner is self-regulated, which has its roots in the research and choice of the individual. However, in order for learning outcomes, through autonomous or independent learning, to contribute to the development of the individual’s disposition and to the optimization of the learning process, the individual must know himself well and be fully aware of his abilities (Apple et al., 2022; Biesta et al., 2022; Biesta, 2020). Can something like this happen? The way a person perceives himself, and the process of perception in general, depends, mainly, on their condition with their context and motivations to grow (Robbin and Judge, 2012).

Hence, a person’s readiness for growth is related to the learning process, as they influence learning behavior and performance in it (Bidjerano and Dai, 2007; Von Stumm, 2018). Readiness and disposition are closely related to individual behavior (Robbins and Judge, 2012). Hence, a person’s readiness for growth is related to the learning process, as they influence learning behavior and performance in it (Bidjerano and Dai, 2007; Von Stumm, 2018). Readiness and disposition are closely related to individual behavior (Robbins and Judge, 2012). In addition, when we say readiness and disposition we mainly mean the way a person reacts to situations; in other context this has been associated to personality traits (Robbins and Judge, 2012), but we have moved beyond this language. The degree of response of each individual to an independent or autonomous form of learning process depends on whether the personality traits that reinforce this tendency of the individual are developed and influence their behavior in learning.

In recent years, several studies (Alfaiz et al., 2019; Sardegna et al., 2017; Steinberg, 2014, etc.) have been conducted on the relationship between a person’s ecological readiness, disposition and the behavior of individuals in the learning process in their independent or autonomous form. A person’s readiness and disposition to learning that shape an individual’s behavior are influenced by elements of the environment. Below, we analyze the elements (or ways), mainly the efforts⁴ for an effective independent or autonomous learning and so can be considered as compulsory elements:

• Strong motivation. Education reflects society. What opportunities do you have to empower young people to learn how to learn? An understanding of our own (but not isolated) response to practices and preferences in this field is an important element. Indeed, individuals receive a lot of information and direct technological influence, which enables them to incorporate traits in their environment into their behavior. The formation of individuals' perceptions and behavior regarding the learning process is directly related to the reflection of the environment and the observation of their own behavior (Bem, 1972; Chen et al., 2006). However, due to the increased uncertainty and limitations in knowledge, more information about independent learning and the role of technology can be a strong motivator for individuals. In addition, when individuals have greater control over their learning style, their motivation is more likely to increase (Bandura, 1977). In this way, conscious reasoning based on this information increases the chances of substantially motivating individuals to respond better to independent learning (Klintman, 2013). Motivation is related to an individual’s previous experiences, to whetting their appetite for knowledge, and to their cognitive curiosity (Bandura, 1977; Von Stumm, 2018). These characteristics vary according to each person’s interest, relativity, and readiness. Given that motivation is not an isolated phenomenon, it is relational and symbiotic process (McClelland, 1985), the degree of motivation depends, to a large extent, on personality traits.

Human motives can be categorized as either conscious or unconscious. The personality of the individual based on the psychoanalytic approach of Freud is divided into three elements which are as follows: id (instinct), the ego (being-dynamic), and the superego (consciousness). The superego is the mediator between id and the ego while the ego is related to the social learning process and concerns the interaction of the individual with their environment. What we observe is that, regardless of personality, the behavior of an individual in the learning process is influenced by internal nature of our being (biological) the stimuli of the external environment and by their (social intercourse and relational) experiences.

• High mental abilities. People with high mental abilities can process information with deep internal analysis. In terms of information, there are two sources of evaluation: an internal form of evaluation based on memory and an external form based on the external environment. The internal form of evaluation sets the framework for evaluation. Depending on the personality traits of the individual, the degree of analysis varies (Gabbott, 2008: 113). An individual’s communication process may have up to three stages, namely, the cognitive, which includes attention and understanding; the emotional, which includes interest and desire; and action, which is the manifestation of an individual’s behavior. While the stages of communication are common to individuals, it does not mean that all individuals go through all the stages (Adcock et al., 2001: 77–78; Smith and Zook, 2011: pp. 100–102). The abilities of individuals related to mental abilities can be developed and this is because all individuals have a certain level of mental ability. The degree of skill development, however, depends on how their mental ability combines with other personality traits.

• Self-discipline. According to the socio-learning theory, individuals who have developed self-control have certain characteristics (Bandura, 1977). These characteristics influence their behavior in the learning process. According to the literature, people who have high self-discipline are more active, while they have high levels of self-efficacy. Indeed, the concept of self-discipline is directly related to perceived feasibility (Linan and Chen, 2009; Shapero and Sokol, 1982), while an individual tends to be more orientated towards knowledge and learning and less towards achieving results. The latter is more related to the external motivations for learning. The focus on learning or achievement is closely related to the reflection of the social environment, as well as to the context (Bidjerano and Dai, 2007; Pintrich, 1995). People with high self-discipline have an increased sense of control over their behavior and this is something that leads to a more conscious manifestation of behavior, which is directly related to self-efficacy. For this reason, they have better adaptability to any learning environment. High levels of self-discipline are associated with other psychological characteristics, such as motivation and personality traits (Ho and Koh, 1992) internal self-regulation and control of behavior, reaction to external stimuli and a fluidity between self, and ecology in a proactive and moldable manner.

• Cognition. Knowledge, through independent/interdependent learning, is rapidly evolving and the manifestation of learning behavior is largely related to the interests of individuals. The basic focus of individuals depends on individual conditions in the formation of behavior (Adcock et al., 2001). Knowledge alone cannot improve learning behavior. The important element is the reward in response (Bandura, 1977). In addition, cognitive factors alone are not responsible for the manifestation of individuals' behavior. They interact with factors associated with an individual’s experience to shape their learning behavior (Bandura, 1977). Therefore, the final behavior of an individual in learning is determined not only by their levels of knowledge but also by their own experiences. McClelland (1985) reframed motivation built on three conditions including sense of relationship a familiarity to the context and information, achievement in the relationship and performance and power within the relationship/learning.

From the above, we can distinguish three elements that can affect the effectiveness of independent or autonomous learning. These are the environment, the experiences and the motives. The effectiveness of the learning process therefore depends on the “psychological value” that individuals place on learning. In discussing the effectiveness of the learning process and the role of technology, we must keep in mind what is the purpose of education (Oliver and Gourlay, 2018). The purpose of education is the holistic development of the individual. Therefore, what we need to see is whether a more autonomous or independent learning contribute more to the overall development of the individual. The learning process is directly related to the environment. The learning environment is related to the learner’s experiences. The environment and experiences influence the learner’s motivations. The environment and experiences that enhance the intrinsic motivation of the individual have better results in learning, because they positively structure the inner search and cooperation in learning (Anderson, 2013; Deci et al., 2001; Moore, 1973; Reeve et al., 1999; Zuckerman et al., 1978). Intrinsic motivation pushes the individual to perceive the learning process as a chosen action and not as an obligation. The sense of free choice in learning has a positive impact on effectiveness.

Especially when the choices of individuals, according to the theory of self-concordance, go hand in hand with the value system of their personality, then the effectiveness of learning is driven to higher levels. One might wonder whether all of the above are simple theoretical approaches and remain in the philosophical debate between the individual’s personality, technology, and learning, without practical application. However, this is not the case. On the contrary, we believe that if the individual shares all the above thoughts, then the result will be impressive and every element of the learning process will fit in its role, without interventions that will affect the effectiveness. What we argue is that the authentic learning environment, authentic learning has the conditions for a constructive realism in the effectiveness of learning. The characteristics of an authentic learning environment include searching, reflecting on knowledge, experiencing and exploring the problem. In all this the teacher is there and is a companion in the learning process with the learner.

The evolution of learning is in the midst of being change, but evidence of a clear emerging theory of learning is yet to be articulated. With this emerging conversation, the following questions continue to persist:

1. What does a clear research-based theory of change for effective learning look like within your local ecology?

2. What is the purpose of this educational venture?

3. What type of mental ability (inborn, learned, or ecologically developed) may be combined with the interest, situation needs, and assets so as to develop the necessary skills?

Significant elements of the learning process

Recent developments that have had a significant impact on the educational process, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, have increased the learning process’ reliance on technology. Indeed, educational platforms such as the Massive Open Online Course (MOOC) and video conferencing platforms such as Zoom have proven to be effective learning tools and have become the mainstay of the learning process (Breslow et al., 2013; Waks, 2016). Indeed, over the last 2 years, the traditional way of conducting the learning process, with the high involvement of educational organizations, has quite abruptly been replaced by the technological environment of educational platforms.

We note that the main change due to the pandemic was only the simple adoption of technological tools so as to facilitate the "physical" educational environment. Due to the special circumstances, educational processes have continued to implement the curriculum but with a strong standardization and this has as a result knowledge to acquire a static character. However, this standardization and the statics of knowledge does not leave much room for a creative approach, either in theory or in practice, since the cognitive process is very limited in terms of the development of social relations (Daskalakis and Fassoulis, 2013). Indeed, the learning process is not a static process but rather a "process of encouragement" (Apple et al., 2022: 4). It is a process as a means of seeking and developing critical thinking so that individuals can shape opinions and attitudes. This cannot happen with standard elements in the learning process, for example, the teacher relies only on the standard rules, without flexibility in learning. The development of creativity is rooted in a more flexible learning process with developed interaction and freedom in learners. What we are saying is that learners need to have a role in learning.

So the key question remains: how can technology have a positive impact on the learning process? As we have mentioned above, individuals do not fully engage with how they learn. For this reason, simplifying and even exaggerating learning methods by creating an ideal model for acquiring knowledge will almost certainly result in failure. In this context and with these new standards, how do the school leaders of tomorrow envision the role of technology in the educational and learning process?

With the rapid diffusion of information due to the technological advances, and consequently the facilitation of communication, educational leaders are at the forefront of a new framework in leadership. We mentioned above that uncertainty is a given, technological developments are swift and unpredictable while individuals are facing a new set of social values. In this context, leaders cannot continue with the status quo. They must adapt to circumstances in order to effectively achieve the educational goals in the new reality (Papa and Brown, 2022). Educational leadership needs to combine learning and leadership theories with technology in the learning process in such a way so as not to nurture any inequalities in the education of the future.

All levels of education converge on a single goal: to develop learners' interest in society and to cultivate teamwork, so as to create truly sustainable communities (Selwyn and Facer 2014; Rogari and Papadantonaki, 2022). To achieve the educational goal, the teacher has the responsibility. The question is how this responsibility of the teacher is perceived. As we have mentioned above, the teacher has the responsibility in learning, to the extent that it will be in line with the needs of the final recipient of the learning process, the learner (Selwyn and Facer 2014; Rogari and Papadantonaki, 2022). The responsibility and role of the teacher is not to impose knowledge, but to push the learner in research of the deeper concepts and values that lead to sustainability. How can this be achieved? Progressive education and pedagogy is one way. Where, then, is technology placed in the context of learning? Technology alone is not human but is man-made, nor does it make decisions—human decisions about the evolution of educational systems that tend to be directed at serving the needs of systems rather than learners, thus precluding their essential participation in the development of the learning process. Therefore, the responsibility of maximizing the contribution of technology to the learning process is clearly a human one.

Actions for the field

In view of the above, technology and new learning opportunities should help to strengthen deep dynamic-critical thinking and an open perception of situations and circumstances (Hattie, 2009; Hope, 2017). Facilitative leadership by serving as a bridge and connectors between people and context, people and people and people and the imagination/future is a form of leadership that can make a significant contribution to the learning process and to its liberation, to a large extent, from the negative/limited perception of different social values. This is a new proposition to our world of thought, practice and theorization of the work in action, that is, a new praxis for post-pandemic times. How can this be done with this form of dynamic-critical leadership in action and service for the common good? Through the cooperation and participation of all involved in the learning process. With “all” we mean the teachers, students, community, educational leaders, parents, and an open invitation to the stranger who is seldomly left out/marginalized unintentionally. We proposed a new conversation that is centered on the power of place and the wisdom of people within their ecological systems. In short, we invite a new politic of teaching, learning, and leading with a goal of reimagining, redesigning and recomputing the future of education and educational leadership for sustainable community and educational development (Author 3a, 2016; Author 3b, 2019).

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Informed consent

The authors give their consent for the publication of this paper.

Notes

ORCID iD

Khalid Arar

Author biographies

Khalid Arar, PhD. is a Professor of Educational Leadership and Policy at Texas State University College of Education, San Marcos, Texas and Associate Editor, International Journal of Leadership in Education.

Anna Saiti, (PhD), Is a Professor of Management & Economics of Education at the University of West Attica, Athens Greece. She is also the director of the lab entitled Leadership and Innovation in the School of Administrative, Economics & Social Sciences at the University of West Attica and an Assistant Editor International Journal of Leadership in Education.

Miguel Guajardo, PhD. Is a professor of Education and Community Leadership at the College of Education, Texas State University, San Marcos TX, 78666.

References

Adcock

Halborg

Ross

(2001) Marketing: Principles and Practice. (Fourth Edition), Essex, England: Prentice Hall, An imprint of Pearson Education Publishing.

AlfaizHidayah

Hambali

Radja

(2019) Human agency as a self-cognition of human autonomous learning: a synthesized practical of agentic approach. Journal of Social Studies Education Research 10(4): 370–391.

Oliver

(2021) What in the world is educational technology?Rethinking the field from the perspective of the philosophy of technology. Learning, Media and Technology 46(1): 6–19.

Anderson

(2013) Independent learning, autonomy control and meta cognition. In: Moore

(ed), Handbook of Distance Education. 3rd edition. New York: Taylor & Francis Group, Routledge, pp. 86–103.

Apple

Biesta

Bright

, et al. (2022) Reflections on contemporary challenges and possibilities for democracy and education. Journal of Educational Administration and History 54: 245–262. DOI: 10.1080/00220620.2022.2052029

Arar

Chen

(2021) The Future of Higher Education: A New Paradigm Shift Addressing Students’ Diversity. In Van’t Land, H., Corcoran, A. & Iancu, D.C. (Eds). The promise of higher education, Switzerland: Springer, pp. 369–376

Arar

Saiti

Prokopiadou

(2021) Higher education and equitable life-long learning for diversified students in the digital era. Higher Education Governance and Policy 2(1): 19–30.

Bandura

(1977) Social Learning Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Bem

(1972) Self-perception theory. In: Berkowitz

(ed), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. New York, NY: Academic Press, 6, pp. 1–62.

10.

Benson

(2011) Teaching and Researching Autonomy. 2nd ed. London, UK: Pearson Education Limited.

11.

Bidjerano

Dai

(2007) The relationship between the big-five model of personality and self-regulated learning strategies. Learning and Individual Differences 17: 69–81.

12.

Biesta

(2020) Can the Prevailing Description of Educational Reality be Considered Complete? On the Parks -Eichmann Paradox, Spooky Action at a Distance, and a Missing Dimension in the Theory of Education. Policy Futures in Education 18(8): 1011–1025. DOI: 10.1177/1478210320910312

13.

Biesta

Wainwright

Aldridge

, et al. (2022) Editorial: a case for diversity in educational research and educational practice. British Educational Research Association (BERA) 48: 1–4.

14.

Breslow

Pritchard

DeBoer

, et al. (2013) Studying learning in the worldwide classroom: research into edX’s first MOOC. Research and Practice in Assessment 8: 13–25.

15.

Brigman

Lewis

(eds), (2017) The Anthropology of Sustainability: Beyond Development and Progress. London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

16.

Chen

Wang

Lin

(2006) Explore the relationships among demography, personality traits and self-directed learning. The Journal of Human Resource and Adult Learning 2: 141–150.

17.

Cuban

(2009) Oversold & Underused. Computers in the Classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

18.

Daskalakis

Fassoulis

(2013) The Organizational Phenomenon in the Internet. Athens, Greece: Papazisi Publishing.

19.

Da Veiga

(2017) The first antropocene utopia. Ambiente and Sociedade 20(2): 227–246.

20.

Deci

Ryan

(1991) A motivational approach to self: integration in personality. In: Dienstbier

(ed), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation: Vol. 38. Perspectives on Motivation. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, pp. 237–288.

21.

Deci

Vallerant

Pelletier

, et al. (1991) Motivation and education: the self-determination perspective. Educational Psychologist 26(3–4): 325–346.

22.

Deci

Koestner

Ryan

, et al. (2001) Extrinsic rewards and intrinsic motivation in education: reconsidered once again. Review of Educational Research 71(1): 1–27.

23.

Dubrin

(2009) Essentials of Management. 8th edition. Mason: SouthWestern, Cengage Learning.

24.

Dusek

(2006) Philosophy and Technology: An Introduction. Malden: Blackwell.

25.

Gabbott

(2008) Consumer Behaviour. In: BakerHart

MJS

(ed), The Marketing Book. 6th Edition. Oxford, UK: Butterworth ‐ Heinemann, pp. 109–120.

26.

Gibson

Ifenthaler

(2017) Preparing the next generation of education researchers for big data in higher education. In: Kei Daniel

(ed), Big Data and Learning Analytics: Current Theory and Practice in Higher Education. New York, NY: Springer, pp. 29–42.

27.

Glister

(1997) Digital Literacy. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

28.

Green

(1988) Subject specific literacy and school learning. Australian Journal of Education 32(2): 156–179.

29.

Guajardo

Janson

Militello

(2016) Reframing community partnerships in education. Uniting the power of place and wisdom of people. New York: Routledge.

30.

Guajardo

Salinas

Gardoza

(2019) Re-Membering, Re-Framing, and Re-Imagining Latino Leadership in Education: Reflections on Community, Higher Learning, and Higher Education. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education 18(2): 141–164.

31.

Hafner

Chik

Jones

(2015) Digital literacies and language learning. Language Learning and Technology 19(3): 1–7.

32.

Hattie

(2009) Visible Learning: A Synthesis of over 800 Meta-Analyses Relating to Achievement. Abingdon, England: Routledge.

33.

Hinrichsen

Coombs

(2014) The five resources of critical digital literacy: a framework for curriculum integration. Research in Learning Technology 21. DOI: 10.3402/rlt.v21.21334

34.

Koh

(1992) Differences in psychological characteristics between entrepreneurially inclined and non-entrepreneurially inclined accounting graduates in Singapore. Entrepreneurship, Innovation and Change: An International Journal 1: 243–254.

35.

Hockings

Thomas

Ottaway

, et al. (2018) Independent learning – what we do when you’re not there. Teaching in Higher Education 23(2): 145–161. DOI: 10.1080/13562517.2017.1332031

36.

Hope

(2017) Appropriate use of technology in educational leadership. In: Wang

Bain

Hope

, et al. (eds), Educational Leadership and Organizational Management. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, pp. 359–388.

37.

Jones

(2014) The Emergence of the Digital Humanities. New York, NY: Routledge.

38.

Klintman

(2013) Citizen-Consumers and Evolution: Reducing Environment Harm through Our Social Motivation. New York, NY: Palgrave-Macmillan.

39.

Lai

(2018) The Learner and the Learning Process: Research and Practice in Technology-Enhanced Learning. In: Voogt

Knezek

Christensen

, et al. (eds), Second Handbook of Information Technology in Primary and Secondary Education. New York: Springer International Handbooks of Education, pp. 127–142.

40.

Landauer

(1986) How much do people remember? Some estimates of the quantity people remember in long term memory? Cognitive Science 10: 477–493.

41.

Lesk

(2011) How Much Information Is There in the World? University of Arizona. Available Online. https://www.lesk.com/mlesk/ksg97/ksg.html

42.

Linan

Chen

(2009) Development and cross-cultural application of a specific instrument to measure entrepreneurial intentions. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 33: 593–617.

43.

Littlejohn

Gourlay

Kennedy

, et al. (2021) Moving teaching online: cultural barriers experienced by university teachers during covid-19. Journal of Interactive Media in Education 7(1): 1–15. DOI: 10.5334/jime.631

44.

Luke

(2000) Critical literacy in Australia. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy 43(5): 448–461.

45.

Martin

Grudziecki

(2006) DigEuLit: Concepts and Tools for Digital Literacy Development. Innovation in Teaching and Learning in Information and Computer Sciences 5(4): 249–267. DOI: 10.11120/ital.2006.05040249

46.

McClelland

(1985) How Motives, Skills, and Values Determine What People Do. American Psychologist 40(7): 812–825.

47.

McLuhan

Powers

(1989) The Global Village. Oxford, UK: Oxford Press.

48.

Mintzberg

Laasch

(2020) Mintzberg on (ir)responsible management. In: Laasch

Suddaby

FreemanJamali

(eds), Research Handbook of Responsible Management. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 73–83.

49.

Maturana

Varela

(1992) The Tree of Knowledge: The Biological Roots of Human Understanding. Boston, MA: Shambhala Publications.

50.

Monod

(1991) Chance and Necessity: An Essay on the Natural Philosophy of Modern Biology. New York, NY: Alfred A Knopf.

51.

Moore

(1973) Toward a theory of independent learning and teaching. The Journal of Higher Education 44(9): 661–679.

52.

Oliver

Gourlay

(2018) The research–teaching nexus revisited. In: Davies

Pachler

(eds), Teaching and Learning in Higher Education: Perspectives from UCL, Chapter 2. London, UK: UCL IoE Press, pp. 21–34.

53.

Papa

Brown

(2022) Professors who prepare educational leaders: United nations sustainability development goals and NELP. In: Papa

Saiti

Snodgress

, et al. (eds), Roads to Integrating Sustainability in School Leadership & Teacher Preparation Programs, Chapter 1. U.S.A.: Lulu Publishing, Published by ICPEL Publications, pp. 1–10.

54.

Pintrich

(1995) Understanding self-regulated learning. In: Pintrich

(ed), Understanding Self-Regulated Learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, pp. 3–12.

55.

Reeve

Bolt

Cai

, et al. (1999) Autonomy-supportive teachers: How they teach and motivate students. Journal of Educational Psychology 91: 537–554.

56.

Reeves

(1998) The Impact of Media and Technology in Schools. GA: The Bertelsmann Foundation

57.

Robbins

Judge

(2012) Organizational Behavior. 13th Edition. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Pearson Education Inc.

58.

Rogari

Papadantonaki

(2022) The professionalism of educators and the sustainability of the environment from a student’s perspective. In: Papa

Saiti

Snodgress

, et al. (eds), Roads to Integrating Sustainability in School Leadership & Teacher Preparation Programs, Chapter 11. U.S.A.: Lulu Publishing, Published by ICPEL Publications, pp. 97–104.

59.

Salite

Fjodorova

Butlere

, et al. (2021) More personal knowledge for more sustainable higher education. Journal of Teacher Education for Sustainability 23(1): 150–165.

60.

Sardegna

Juhee

Crystal

(2017) Self-Efficacy Attitudes, and Choice of Strategies for English Pronunciation Learning. Language Learning 68(1): 83–114. DOI: 10.1111/lang.12263

61.

Schleicher

(2019) PISA 2018: Insights and Interpretations. France: OECD. https://www.oecd.org/pisa/PISA2018InsightsandInterpretationsFINALPDF.pdf

62.

Selwyn

Facer

(2014) The sociology of education and digital technology: past, present and future. Oxford Review of Education 40(4): 482–496. DOI: 10.1080/03054985.2014.933005

63.

Shapero

Sokol

(1982) Social dimensions of entrepreneurship. In: Kent

Sexton

Vesper

(eds), Encyclopedia of Entrepreneurship. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, pp. 72–90.

64.

Smith

PR.

Zook

(2011) Marketing Communications: Integrating Offline and Online Social with Social Media. UK: Kogna Page Ltd.

65.

Steinberg

M, P.

(2014) Does Greater Autonomy Improve School Performance? Evidence from a Regression Discontinuity Analysis in Chicago. Education Finance and Policy 9(1): 1–35. DOI: 10.1162/edfp_a_00118

66.

Szeluga-Romańska

Kostera

Modzelewska

(2020). Social communication in the Antropocene: new implications for humanistic management, post-print. hal-03537213, HAL. (No. hal-03537213).

67.

Von Stumm

(2018) Better Open Than Intellectual: The Benefits of Investment Personality. Traits for Learning Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 44(4): 562–573.

68.

Waks

(2016) Education 2.0: The Learning Web Revolution and the Transformation of the School. New York, NY: Routledge.

69.

Wilson

(1995) Metaphors for instruction: Why we talk about learning environments. Educational Technology 35(5): 25–30.

70.

Zimmerman

(2002) Becoming a self-regulated learner: an overview. Theory Into Practice 41(2): 64–70.

71.

Zuckerman

Porac

Lathin

, et al. (1978) On the importance of self-determination for intrinsically motivated behavior. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin 4: 443–446.