The New Role of the Teacher in Education 4.0

10th International Scientific Conference Technics, Informatics and Education – TIE 2024, str. 153-160

АУТОР(И) / AUTHOR(S): Damir Purković , Stjepan Kovačević , Dino Delač

Download Full Pdf  

DOI: 10.46793/TIE24.153P

САЖЕТАК /ABSTRACT:

Today’s social, political and technological changes, known as the 4th Industrial Revolution, have merged the physical and digital worlds and are affecting expectations for student education. In addition to expectations for soft skills development, there is an emphasis on adaptability, sustainability and critical thinking. This requires a change in the role of the teacher, especially in the technical/technological area of teaching, which is dynamic but also offers numerous opportunities for the development of the desired skills. In this context, Education 4.0 emerges as a strategy that should provide today’s students with a personalized learning experience, mobile learning, a flexible and tailored curriculum and the development of practical and applicable skills. The analysis shows that in such a context, the teacher should primarily play the role of a mentor, facilitator and helper in discovering the student’s preferences, but also as an organizer of practical activities and a guide to the student’s development path according to their preferences. Whether a teacher is willing to take on such a role depends on their knowledge and skills, but also on their attitude, beliefs and teaching practice, as well as the willingness of educational authorities to lose complete control over the educational process.

КЉУЧНЕ РЕЧИ / KEYWORDS: 

applicable skills; education 4.0; sustainability; technical and technological education; the role of the teacher

ЛИТЕРАТУРА / REFERENCES:

  1. Raja Santhi, A. & Muthuswamy, P. Industry 5.0 or industry 4.0S? Introduction to industry 4.0 and a peek into the prospective industry 5.0 technologies. Int J Interact Des Manuf 17, 947–979 (2023). doi: 10.1007/s12008-023-01217-8
  2. Gleason, N. W. (2018). Higher Education in the Era of the Fourth Industrial Revolution. Palgrave Macmillan Singapore. doi: 10.1007/978-981-13-0194-0
  3. Li, D., Xu (2020). Industry 4.0—Frontiers of fourth industrial revolution. Res. Behav. Sci. 37(4), 531–534 (2020). doi: 10.1002/sres.2719
  4. Grzybowska, K. & Łupicka, A. (2017). Key competencies for Industry 4.0. Economics & Management Innovations (ICEMI) 1(1) (2017), 250-253.
  5. Sony, M. (2020). Pros and cons of implementing Industry 4.0 for the organizations: a review and synthesis of evidence. Production & amp; Manufacturing Research, 8(1), 244–272. doi: 10.1080/21693277.2020.1781705
  6. EC (2021). Renda, A., Schwaag Serger, S., Tataj, D. et al., Industry 5.0, a transformative vision for Europe – Governing systemic transformations towards a sustainable industry. Publications Office of the European Union, Directorate-General for Research and Innovation, 2021, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/17322
  7. Nakanishi, H. (2019). Modern Society Has Reached Its Limits – “Society 5.0” Will Liberate us. Davos: World Economic Forum.
  8. Goede, M. (2022). Society 5.0 is a new social contract. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/359250374_Society_50_is_a_new_social_contract#fullTextFileContent
  9. Maddikunta, P.K.R., Pham, Q.-V., Prabadevi, B., Deepa, N., Dev, K., Gadekallu, T.R., Ruby, R. & Liyanage, M. (2021). Industry 5.0: a survey on enabling technologies and potential applications. Industrial Inform. Integr. 100257 (2021). doi: 10.1016/j.jii.2021.100257
  10. Purković, D. (2024). Demystifying technology as the basis of education for sustainability. In Globalization and Sustainability – Ecological, Social and Cultural Perspectives [Working Title], London: IntechOpen. doi: 10.5772/intechopen.1004517
  11. James, M.T. (2020). Toward the Fourth Industrial Revolution on Real-Time Customization. Journal of Systems Science and Systems Engineering, 29, 127-142. doi: 10.1007/s11518-019-5433-9
  12. WEF (2023). Defining Education 4.0: A Taxonomy for the Future of Learning. Geneva: World Economic Forum.
  13. Fisk, P. (2017). Changing the game of education. https://www.thegeniusworks.com/ 2017/01/future-education-young-everyone-taught-together/
  14. Fisk, P. (2017). Education 4.0 … the future of learning will be dramatically different, in school and throughout life. http://www.thegeniusworks.com/2017/01/future-education-young-everyone-taught-together/
  15. Lase, D. (2019). Education and Industrial Revolution 4.0. Journal Handayani, 10(1), 48-62. doi: 10.24114/jh.v10i1.14138
  16. Arpilleda, A.J., Mallillin, M. R. (2022). Perceived Knowledge, Attitudes, Beliefs and Instructional Practices in Education 4.0. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/366686031
  17. Purković, D., Suman, D. & Jelaska, I. (2020). Age and gender differences between pupils’ preferences in teaching general and compulsory technology education in Croatia. International journal of technology and design education, 17 (2020), 234, 19. doi: 10.1007/s10798-020-09586-x
  18. Purković, D., Delač, D. & Kovačević, S. (2022). Interests of Croatian primary school pupils about elective technology teaching and school activities. Metodički ogledi, 29 (2022), 1; 167-189. doi: 10.21464/mo.29.1.6
  19. Male, S. A. (2010). Generic Engineering Competences: A Review and Modelling Approach. Education research and Perspectives, 37(1), 25-51.
  20. Abdulwahed, M. & Hasna, M.O. (2017). Engineering and Technology Talent for Innovation and Knowledge-Based Economies: Competencies, Leadership, and a Roadmap for Implementation. Springer International Publishing AG 2017.
  21. Purković, D., Kovačević, S. & Runko Luttenberger, L. (2023). Attitudes of Croatian Pupils on the relationship of Environmental Issues and Sustainable Development with Technology and Engineering. International journal of technology and design education, 33 (2023), 4, 1285-1307. doi: 10.1007/s10798-022-09779-6
  22. Purković, D. (2022). The importance of technical and technological knowledge for the development of students’ critical thinking. INTERNATIONAL EUROPEAN CONGRESS ON SOCIAL SCIENCES – FULL TEXT BOOK, Mrnjaus, K. (ed.). Rijeka: IKSAD, 2022. pp. 326-338.
  23. Arpilleda, Y.J., Oracion, R.V.L., Arpilleda, A.J., Chua, L.L. & Gortifacion, A.K.N. (2023). Teachers’ Knowledge, Attitudes, Beliefs, and Instructional Practices in Education 4.0. Cognizance Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies, 3(2), 73-82. doi: 10.47760/cognizance.2023.v03i02.004
  24. WEF (2023). Innovative Learning Solutions to Navigate Complexity: Adapting Systems Thinking to Future Classrooms. Geneva: World Economic Forum.
  25. Snoek, M., Swennen, A. & Van der Klink, M. (2011). The quality of teacher educators in the European policy debate: Actions and measures to improve the professionalism of teacher educators. Professional Development in Education, 37 (5), 651-664.
  26. Vizek Vidović, V. & Domović, V. (2013). Teachers in Europe – Main Trends, Issues and Challenges. Croatian Journal of Education, 15(Sp. Ed. 3), 219-250.
  27. Guerriero, S. (2017). Teachers’ pedagogical knowledge: What it is and how it functions. In: Guerriero, S. (ed.), Pedagogical Knowledge and the Changing Nature of the Teaching Profession. pp. 99-118, Paris: OECD Publishing. doi: 10.1787/9789264270695-6-en
  28. Runge, I., Lazarides, R., Rubach, C., Richter, D. & Scheiter, K. (2023). Teacher-reported instructional quality in the context of technology-enhanced teaching: The role of teachers’ digital competence-related beliefs in empowering learners. Computers & Education, 198 (2023). doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2023.104761
  29. Stegmann, K. (2020). Effekte digitalen Lernens auf den Wissens- und Kompetenzenerwerb in der Schule: Eine Integration metaanalytischer Befunde [Effects of digital learning for knowledge acquisition and competence development in school: An integration of meta-analytic evidence]. Zeitschrift für Pedagogik, 66(2), 174–190.
  30. Deepika, A., Kandakatla, R., Saida, A., & Reddy, V. B. (2021). Implementation of ICAP principles through technology tools: Exploring the alignment between pedagogy and technology. Journal of Engineering Education Transformations, 34(SP ICTIEE), 542–549.
  31. Antonietti, C., Schmitz, M-L., Consoli, T., Cattaneo, A., Gonon, P. & Petko, D. (2023). Development and validation of the ICAP Technology Scale to measure how teachers integrate technology into learning activities. Computers & Education, 192, 2023, 104648. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2022.104648.
  32. Purković, D. & Kovačević, S. (2024). The relationship between the teacher’s approach to teaching and the student’s attitude toward technology in Croatian primary schools. International journal of technology and design education, (2024), doi: 10.1007/s10798-023-09875-1
  33. Galloway, P. D. (2008). The 21st-Century Engineer: A Proposal for Engineering Education Reform. Reston, Virginia: ASCE Press.
  34. Purković, D. & Prihoda Perišić, M. (2020). Differences in the Students’ Achievements between Traditional and Project-based Learning of Basic Engineering Competencies: A Quasi-experimental Study. In Skala, K. (ed), 43rd International Convention on Information, Communication and Electronic Technology (MIPRO), 1514-1519. doi: 10.23919/MIPRO48935.2020.9245303
  35. Nair, C. S., Patil, A. & Mertova, P. (2009). Re-engineering graduate skills – a case study. European Journal of Engineering Education, 34(2), 131 – 139.
  36. Scott, G., & Yates, K. W. (2002). Using successful graduates to improve the quality of undergraduate engineering programmes. European Journal of Engineering Education, 27(4), 363-378.
  37. Johnston, A. & King, R. (2008). Addressing the supply and quality of engineering graduates for the new century. Technical Report, https://www.researchgate. net/publication/281010845. doi: 10.13140/RG.2.1.2378.4166
  38. Newport, C. L. & Elms, D. G. (1997). Effective engineers. International Journal of Engineering Education, 13(5), 325-332.
  39. Praj, F., Horváthová, M. & Čambál, M. (2022). Employee competencies in line with Industry 4.0. IOP Conf. Ser.: Mater. Sci. Eng. 1256 012033. doi: 10.1088/1757-899X/1256/1/012033
  40. Heard J., Scoular, C., Duckworth, D., Ramalingam, D., & Teo, I. (2020). Critical thinking: Definition and structure. Australian Council for Educational Research. https://research.acer.edu.au/ar_misc/38
  41. Huang, B., Jong, M., S-Y., Tu, Y-F., Hwang, G-J., Chai, C., S. & Jiang, M., Y-C. (2022). Trends and exemplary practices of STEM teacher professional development programs in K-12 contexts: A systematic review of empirical studies. Computers & Education, 189 (2022), 104577. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2022.104577
  42. Rohaan, E. J., Taconis, R., & Jochems, M. G. Wim (2008). Reviewing the relations between teachers’ knowledge and pupils’ attitude in the field of primary technology education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 20, 15–26, doi: 10.1007/s10798-008-9055-7
  43. De Vries, M. (2000). Can we train researchers and teachers to make a team? Win-win strategies in technology education. In First Biennial International Conference on Technology Education Research Proceedings, pp. 1–12, Brisbane: Griffith University.
  44. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those Who Understand: Knowledge Growth in Teaching. Educational Researcher, 15, (2), 4-14.
  45. Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and Teaching: Foundations of the New Reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1-22.
  46. De Miranda, M. A. (2008). Pedagogical Content Knowledge and Engineering and Technology Teacher Education: Issues for thought. Journal of the Japanese Society of Technology Education 50 (1) 17-26.
  47. Koehler, M. J., Mishra, P., & Cain, W. (2013). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK)? Journal of Education, 193(3), 13–19.
  48. Mishra, P. & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: A Framework for Teacher Knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108 (6), 1017–1054.
  49. Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge? Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 60–70.
  50. Purković, D. & Kovačević, S. (2020). Teachers’ perception of the influence of the teaching context on cognitive achievements in general technology education. International journal of cognitive research in science, engineering and education, 8 (2020), Special issue; 1-15. doi: 10.23947/2334-8496-2020-8-SI-1-15
  51. Purković, D. & Kovačević, S. (2020). Hierarchical structure of the importance of teaching context in general technology education. Knowledge, 40 (2), 317-325.
  52. Chi, M. T. (2009). Active-constructive-interactive: A conceptual framework for differentiating learning activities. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1(1), Article 73105. doi: 10.1111/j.1756-8765.2008.01005.x
  53. Chi, M. T. & Wylie, R. (2014). The ICAP framework: Linking cognitive engagement to active learning outcomes. Educational Psychologist, 49(4), 219–243. doi: 10.1080/00461520.2014.965823
  54. Chi, M. T., Adams, J., Bogusch, E. B., Bruchok, C., Kang, S., Lancaster, M., Levy, R., Li, N., McEldoon, K. L., Stump, G. S., Wylie, R., Xu, D., & Yaghmourian, D. L. (2018). Translating the ICAP theory of cognitive engagement into practice. Cognitive Science, 42(6), 1777–1832. doi: 10.1111/cogs.12626
  55. Höffler, T. N., & Leutner, D. (2007). Instructional animation versus static pictures: A meta-analysis. Learning and Instruction, 17(6), 722–738. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.09.013
  56. Sailer, M., Schultz-Pernice, F., Chernikova, O., Sailer, M., & Fischer, F. (2018). Digitale Bildung an bayerischen hochschulen – ausstattung, strategie, Qualifizierung und medieneinsatz [digital education in bavarian universities – equipment. strategy, qualification, technology use]. https://www.vbw-bayern.de/Redaktion/Frei-zugaengliche-Medien/Abteilungen-GS/Bildung/Archiv/2018/Downloads/FINAL_Digitale_Bildung_an_bayerischen_Hochschulen-2018.pdf
  57. Nilholm, C., Sundberg, D., Forsberg, E., Hirsh, Å. & Román, H. (2021). The aims and meaning of teaching as reflected in high-impact reviews of teaching research. Teaching and Teacher Education, 107(2021), 103488. doi: h10.1016/j.tate.2021.103488.
  58. Ređep, T., Leček, T., & Pavičić Zajec, T. (2020). Realisation of m-learning by using BYOD model in primary school. Polytechnica, 3(2), 27-34. doi: 10.36978/cte.3.2.3