Recommendations

5.3.5.1 Recommendations for practice

Recommendations for practice were especially based on increasing the practicality of the SBV framework and improving the WegWijzer, or such an application which was also based on the SBV framework.

If the SBV framework became more practical, it was assumed the framework could help teachers by implementing 21st _{Century Skills in practice. Therefore, the SBV framework should have} clear definitions of the visions of learning. To revise the framework, there could be decided to use more literature that explains these visions. The explanations in the cells should be written from the same point of view. An expert advised to focus only on students’ skills. There could be decided to

rephrase the explanations into the same point of view. An example of this change: ‘ICT can be used to recall knowledge’ could be changed into ‘Students use ICT to recall knowledge’. Creativity should be included as a 21st _{Century Skill. To revise the framework, there could be decided to rephrase the} explanation of the 21st _{Century Skills. The framework should include enough background information} about 21st _{Century Skills, Bloom’s taxonomy and visions of learning. It should be clear that used} literature is academic. There could be decided to give a clearer description of the academic literature already used and to supplement this literature with other academic literature. To improve the expected usefulness for teachers, practical examples should be added to the framework. There could be decided to add three new tables to the first version of the SBV framework. These tables should contain examples of activities that fit in almost each cell of the SBV framework. The examples should be in Dutch, to increase the practical usefulness for teachers in the Netherlands. Furthermore, the framework should use actual learning activities, which were appropriate for the audience. Thus, learning activities related to the level of students, teachers’ own skills and the subject they teach. Besides, learning activities should be doable to implement, or the application should provide support for implementing 21st _{Century Skills. It should be clear how end users should use the application and} therefore the framework. Appropriate and clear background information about the models used in the framework should be provided. The framework should be clear about the empirical grounding of this background information. It should be clear the framework is not just a new framework, but it was important to emphasize the integration between the old and the new. Finally, by making an application based on the SBV framework, be aware of the fact such an application had always to do with limiting conditions. This application alone could not change everything, its environment should make changes too.

To improve the WegWijzer, or such an application, it should include practical examples. Voogt and Odenthal (1999) already mentioned practical examples, which they called emergent practices. They characterised them as helping to develop solutions to difficulties which hinder implementation of innovative elements, being developed to find practices which serves to the demands of the society and showing what innovative education can look like. Following the findings of this study, the

examples of learning activities should be clear, adaptable to different students’ levels, formulated in Dutch, and preference should be given to activities where teachers could learn from. Furthermore, in the application, Bloom’s taxonomy should be clarified and teachers’ should receive help to choose in which element of Bloom they wanted to select a learning activity. Besides, the application should illustrate which choices were made, to prevent teachers did not know in which part of the application they were working in.

To improve the use of the WegWijzer or such an application based on the SBV framework, it seemed to be apparent that more support will be needed. This support could be found in non-digital solutions, such as workshops or seminars. Furthermore, external factors could influence the use of an application based on the SBV framework. Cavanagh and Dellar (1997) stated already in the 90’s that congruency between existing values and an externally implemented innovation, such as the WegWijzer, probably meant that teachers will accept and implement the innovation. If there is no congruency, implementation would probably be much harder. It seemed that Cavanagh and Dellar (1997) gave one of the explanations that explained why teachers in this study did not implement the WegWijzer yet.

The organizational context of this study, Microsoft Nederland, made an application with the help of this study, named ‘Doe IT!’. This application could be an example for further practical applications. Print screens of the application can be found in appendix K.

5.3.5.2 Recommendations for further research

Following Korthagen and Kessels (1999), teachers were not able to make a transformation of theoretical knowledge towards practical knowledge. Experts of this study seemed to agree this perception, since they advised to add practical examples into the SBV framework. Practical examples could be added to the framework, but it should be better if teachers can make this transformation on their own. Further research should study how teachers decide their practical acting based on their prior knowledge.

Following the conclusions of this study, teachers saw the importance of implementing 21st Century Skills. Assuming teachers were able to transform their prior theoretical knowledge into practical actions, it seemed peculiar teachers did not already changed their daily practices. Coburn (2003) and Barrett (2012) already stated a perfect design is not enough to reach the classroom. Further research should identify what teachers need to actual implement 21st _{Century Skills, since} this study concluded small to no effects were seen after the use of the WegWijzer. Further research should also identify what teachers need to implement 21st _{Century Skills on a structural basis.}

Bloom’s taxonomy was seen as the hardest part of the SBV framework, following teachers who used the WegWijzer. Further research should clarify if Bloom’s taxonomy should be substituted to improve usefulness of the framework for teachers. And if so, which model should be the replacement of Bloom’s taxonomy.