problems of education in the 21st century

Problems of Education in the 21st Century

Issn 1822-7864 (print) issn 2538-7111 (online), welcome to problems of education in the 21st century.

Latest Issues:

• Volume 82 No.5
• Volume 82 No.4
• Volume 82 No.3
• Volume 82 No.2
• Volume 82 No.1

Problems of Education in the 21st Century is an international, periodical scientific journal publishing original research across the whole of education. The journal's Editorial Board and staff are committed to building PEC into the leading scientific journal in its field by publishing articles of outstanding scientific quality that merit the attention and interest of the whole educational community.

The Problems of Education in the 21st Century ( PEC ) is published bi-monthly ( from 2015 ). PEC is an Open Access Journal. The journal provides "Open Access" to its content by targeting free sharing of its articles with the public. Problems of Education in the 21st Century is a Crossref member and DOI system is being implemented.

Aims & Scope

Problems of Education in the 21st Century (PEC) is peer-reviewed journal. Every submission is preliminarily assessed by the Editorial Board who also guide the formal peer-review process. Aproximatelly 60% of submissions are rejected. Read more —

Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement

Problems of Education in the 21st Century (PEC) is dedicated to following best practices on ethical matters, errors and retractions. The prevention of publication malpractice is one of the important responsibilities of the editorial board. Any kind of unethical behavior is not acceptable. Read full document —

Information

No front page content has been created yet.

Four of the biggest problems facing education—and four trends that could make a difference

Eduardo velez bustillo, harry a. patrinos.

In 2022, we published, Lessons for the education sector from the COVID-19 pandemic , which was a follow up to,  Four Education Trends that Countries Everywhere Should Know About , which summarized views of education experts around the world on how to handle the most pressing issues facing the education sector then. We focused on neuroscience, the role of the private sector, education technology, inequality, and pedagogy.

Unfortunately, we think the four biggest problems facing education today in developing countries are the same ones we have identified in the last decades .

1. The learning crisis was made worse by COVID-19 school closures

Low quality instruction is a major constraint and prior to COVID-19, the learning poverty rate in low- and middle-income countries was 57% (6 out of 10 children could not read and understand basic texts by age 10). More dramatic is the case of Sub-Saharan Africa with a rate even higher at 86%. Several analyses show that the impact of the pandemic on student learning was significant, leaving students in low- and middle-income countries way behind in mathematics, reading and other subjects.  Some argue that learning poverty may be close to 70% after the pandemic , with a substantial long-term negative effect in future earnings. This generation could lose around $21 trillion in future salaries, with the vulnerable students affected the most.

2. Countries are not paying enough attention to early childhood care and education (ECCE)

At the pre-school level about two-thirds of countries do not have a proper legal framework to provide free and compulsory pre-primary education. According to UNESCO, only a minority of countries, mostly high-income, were making timely progress towards SDG4 benchmarks on early childhood indicators prior to the onset of COVID-19. And remember that ECCE is not only preparation for primary school. It can be the foundation for emotional wellbeing and learning throughout life; one of the best investments a country can make.

3. There is an inadequate supply of high-quality teachers

Low quality teaching is a huge problem and getting worse in many low- and middle-income countries.  In Sub-Saharan Africa, for example, the percentage of trained teachers fell from 84% in 2000 to 69% in 2019 . In addition, in many countries teachers are formally trained and as such qualified, but do not have the minimum pedagogical training. Globally, teachers for science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) subjects are the biggest shortfalls.

4. Decision-makers are not implementing evidence-based or pro-equity policies that guarantee solid foundations

It is difficult to understand the continued focus on non-evidence-based policies when there is so much that we know now about what works. Two factors contribute to this problem. One is the short tenure that top officials have when leading education systems. Examples of countries where ministers last less than one year on average are plentiful. The second and more worrisome deals with the fact that there is little attention given to empirical evidence when designing education policies.

To help improve on these four fronts, we see four supporting trends:

1. Neuroscience should be integrated into education policies

Policies considering neuroscience can help ensure that students get proper attention early to support brain development in the first 2-3 years of life. It can also help ensure that children learn to read at the proper age so that they will be able to acquire foundational skills to learn during the primary education cycle and from there on. Inputs like micronutrients, early child stimulation for gross and fine motor skills, speech and language and playing with other children before the age of three are cost-effective ways to get proper development. Early grade reading, using the pedagogical suggestion by the Early Grade Reading Assessment model, has improved learning outcomes in many low- and middle-income countries. We now have the tools to incorporate these advances into the teaching and learning system with AI , ChatGPT , MOOCs and online tutoring.

2. Reversing learning losses at home and at school

There is a real need to address the remaining and lingering losses due to school closures because of COVID-19.  Most students living in households with incomes under the poverty line in the developing world, roughly the bottom 80% in low-income countries and the bottom 50% in middle-income countries, do not have the minimum conditions to learn at home . These students do not have access to the internet, and, often, their parents or guardians do not have the necessary schooling level or the time to help them in their learning process. Connectivity for poor households is a priority. But learning continuity also requires the presence of an adult as a facilitator—a parent, guardian, instructor, or community worker assisting the student during the learning process while schools are closed or e-learning is used.

To recover from the negative impact of the pandemic, the school system will need to develop at the student level: (i) active and reflective learning; (ii) analytical and applied skills; (iii) strong self-esteem; (iv) attitudes supportive of cooperation and solidarity; and (v) a good knowledge of the curriculum areas. At the teacher (instructor, facilitator, parent) level, the system should aim to develop a new disposition toward the role of teacher as a guide and facilitator. And finally, the system also needs to increase parental involvement in the education of their children and be active part in the solution of the children’s problems. The Escuela Nueva Learning Circles or the Pratham Teaching at the Right Level (TaRL) are models that can be used.

3. Use of evidence to improve teaching and learning

We now know more about what works at scale to address the learning crisis. To help countries improve teaching and learning and make teaching an attractive profession, based on available empirical world-wide evidence , we need to improve its status, compensation policies and career progression structures; ensure pre-service education includes a strong practicum component so teachers are well equipped to transition and perform effectively in the classroom; and provide high-quality in-service professional development to ensure they keep teaching in an effective way. We also have the tools to address learning issues cost-effectively. The returns to schooling are high and increasing post-pandemic. But we also have the cost-benefit tools to make good decisions, and these suggest that structured pedagogy, teaching according to learning levels (with and without technology use) are proven effective and cost-effective .

4. The role of the private sector

When properly regulated the private sector can be an effective education provider, and it can help address the specific needs of countries. Most of the pedagogical models that have received international recognition come from the private sector. For example, the recipients of the Yidan Prize on education development are from the non-state sector experiences (Escuela Nueva, BRAC, edX, Pratham, CAMFED and New Education Initiative). In the context of the Artificial Intelligence movement, most of the tools that will revolutionize teaching and learning come from the private sector (i.e., big data, machine learning, electronic pedagogies like OER-Open Educational Resources, MOOCs, etc.). Around the world education technology start-ups are developing AI tools that may have a good potential to help improve quality of education .

After decades asking the same questions on how to improve the education systems of countries, we, finally, are finding answers that are very promising.  Governments need to be aware of this fact.

To receive weekly articles,  sign-up here  

Get updates from Education for Global Development

Thank you for choosing to be part of the Education for Global Development community!

Your subscription is now active. The latest blog posts and blog-related announcements will be delivered directly to your email inbox. You may unsubscribe at any time.

Consultant, Education Sector, World Bank

Senior Adviser, Education

Join the Conversation

• Share on mail
• comments added

Challenges in integrating 21st century skills into education systems

Subscribe to the center for universal education bulletin, tserennadmid nyamkhuu and tn tserennadmid nyamkhuu program officer - unesco asia-pacific regional bureau for education jun morohashi jm jun morohashi regional program coordinator - unesco asia-pacific regional bureau for education.

February 5, 2019

This is the second post in a series about education systems alignment in teaching, learning, and assessing 21st century skills .

UNESCO, a leading agency for sustainable development and global citizenship education, has promoted the concept of holistic learning reflected in Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 4, and particularly SDG 4.7 , based on three pillars: cognitive, socio-emotional, and behavioral. And many countries are shifting their learning goals to respond to the emerging education needs of the 21st century. In the Asia-Pacific region, UNESCO Bangkok, through its regional platforms—Educational Research Institutes Network ( ERI-Net ) and Network on Education Quality Monitoring in the Asia-Pacific ( NEQMAP )—has undertaken a series of collaborative research studies with countries in Asia, focusing on different aspects of 21st century skills learning. Most recently, NEQMAP’s 6th Annual Meeting , held in December 2018 in Bangkok, focused on issues and challenges in the integration of 21st century skills in curriculum, pedagogy, and assessment.

UNESCO Bangkok has a coordination role in monitoring the progress toward SDG 4 by member states in Asia and the Pacific. The globally agreed indicator 4.7.1 aims to measure the “ extent to which (i) global citizenship education and (ii) education for sustainable development, including gender equality and human rights, are mainstreamed at all levels in…[education] .” However, a limitation is that it addresses a country’s efforts to improve education provisions but does not measure its impact on learners.

It is clear that many countries put significant effort into reflecting the importance of 21st century skills in their education policies and plans. Some countries are taking steps to mainstream SDG 4.7 in the curricula through techniques such as project-based learning and field studies, while many seek to integrate and assess competencies such as critical thinking, collaboration, and global citizenship education through subject areas (e.g., social studies, science, and information and communications technology). Can examinations and other “tests” actually measure abstract areas such as creativity or collaboration in ways that are valid and reliable? How can a teacher, for example, evaluate the degree to which a student is empathetic or compassionate, and has skills for taking initiative?

New report on education system alignment for 21st century skills

In many countries in Asia and the Pacific, assessment still follows the traditional path of measuring students’ literacy, numeracy, and knowledge. A newly published report by the Brookings Institution, “ Education system alignment for 21st century skills: Focus on assessment ,” describes the challenges to measurement of new learning goals, which include collaboration and communication, as well as complex cognitive skills like creative problem-solving.

The report says “local contexts matter more than cross-national comparability in educational assessments.” Indeed, our member states’ education officials highlight that guidelines developed at the global/regional level are useful for reviewing their policies and practices, but emphasize the need for flexibility for each country to define their own understanding of SDG 4.7. Reviews have shown that existing curricula already include many 21st century competencies, but the challenge lies in the need for systematic implementation of these curricula through alignment with appropriate pedagogy and assessment. In many cases there is also a need to refresh curricula to reflect the skills more explicitly—the Philippines is one example of a country that has reformed to reflect a new vision of education. Another major challenge described in the report is the lack of understanding of “a learning domain, or ‘construct,’” as well as “what increasing levels of competency in a skill look like… without [which] designing assessment frameworks and tasks are impossible.” It is an extremely complex process that requires in-depth discussions among education stakeholders for them to arrive at consensus, to be followed by intensive capacity development for implementation.

UNESCO Bangkok, through NEQMAP, is collaborating with the Brookings Institution on the regional initiative Optimizing Assessment for All (OAA). OAA is designed to support countries’ improvement of assessment, teaching, and learning of 21st century skills focused on critical thinking, problem-solving, and collaboration in math, science, and social science. UNESCO is most interested in enlarging the scope of assessment by including these skills, and not just the cognitive ones. In contrast with high-stakes assessments that are nationally implemented at large scale and have major implications for individual student progression and system-level evaluation of school performance, OAA takes a bottom-up approach by focusing on strengthening teachers’ capacity in the use of classroom-level assessment of 21st century skills to support learning. In Asia, three countries—Cambodia, Nepal, and Mongolia—are benefiting from this initiative.

School-based data alone cannot monitor and measure outcomes in terms of attitudinal and behavior changes of learners. The impact of family and the community must also be considered. Accordingly, UNESCO Bangkok has recently launched a pilot to provide technical support to education authorities to review their learning assessment policy and practices, as well as data availability for defining the indicators related to SDG 4.7. Vietnam is the first pilot country, and the first consultation meeting recently took place in collaboration with the Vietnam Institute of Educational Sciences (VNIES). UNESCO Bangkok will continue supporting countries in the region to strengthen capacity and enhance knowledge on the interface between curriculum, pedagogy, and assessment systems that can support acquisition of 21st century skills.

Related Content

Helyn Kim, Esther Care, Alvin Vista

January 30, 2019

Esther Care, Helyn Kim, Alvin Vista, Kate Anderson

Alvin Vista, Helyn Kim, Esther Care

October 18, 2018

Global Education

Global Economy and Development

Center for Universal Education

Christine Apiot Okudi, Ellen Chigwanda, Thinley Choden, Sumbal Naveed, Mary Otieno, Jamila Razzaq, Nasrin Siddiqa, Jennifer L. O’Donoghue

November 14, 2024

Sweta Shah, Ben Hewitt

November 13, 2024

Kelsey Rappe, Modupe (Mo) Olateju, Grace Cannon

October 31, 2024

The Twenty-First Century Curriculum: Issues and Challenges

• Living reference work entry
• Latest version View entry history
• First Online: 21 February 2018
• Cite this living reference work entry

• Ola Erstad 5 &
• Joke Voogt 6  

Part of the book series: Springer International Handbooks of Education ((SIHE))

4339 Accesses

2 Citations

In this chapter we review key conceptual frameworks that address the challenges of society in contemporary discussions about the curriculum. The central question guiding the chapter is “What should be taught and learned in school curricula in the 21st century.” Four meta-reviews are presented that analyze the contribution of major conceptual frameworks to this discussion. After identifying the key competences important for the twenty-first century, the focus of the chapter shifts to roles for new technologies in the curriculum. Issues that hamper the curriculum to change in directions that are considered important for teaching and learning are identified. We finalize with new perspectives on curriculum and curriculum development in the twenty-first century society.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Introduction: Exploring the Enduring Questions of Curriculum in Context

The Dynamic Interplay Between Curriculum and Context: Revisions in Response to National, Societal, and Contextual Needs

Ainley, J. (in press). Computer literacy in the curriculum: Are students computer literate? In J. Voogt, G. Knezek, R. Christensen, & K.-W. Lai (Eds.), Handbook of Information Technology in Primary and Secondary Education (2nd ed) . Cham: Springer International Publishing.

Google Scholar  

Alexander, R. (2001). Culture & pedagogy. International comparisons in primary education . Malden: Blackwell.

Ananiadou, K., & Claro, M. (2009). 21st century skills and competences for New Millennium Learners in OECD countries. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. EDU working paper no. 41. Retrieved from http://www.olis.oecd.org/olis/2009doc.nsf/linkto/edu-wkp(2009)20

Binkley, M., Erstad, O., Herman, J., Raizen, S., Ripley, M., Miller-Ricci, M., & Rumble, M. (2012). Defining twenty-first century skills. In P. Griffin, B. McGaw, & E. Care (Eds.), Assessment and teaching of 21st century skills (pp. 17–66). Dordrecht: Springer.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (2000). How people learn. Brain, mind, experience, and school . Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Bray, B., & McClaskey, K. (2013). Personalization v differentiation v individualization. Report (v2). Licensed under a creative commons atribution-nonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Imported License.

CERI. (2008). Innovating to learn, learning to innovate . Paris: OECD.

Davis, N.E., Eickelmann, B., & Zaka, P. (2013). A co-evolutionary perspective on the restructuring of schooling systems in the digital age. Journal for Computer-Assisted Learning, 29 (5), 438–450.

Dede, C. (2010). Comparing frameworks for 21st century skills. In J. Bellanca & R. Brandt (Eds.), 21st century skills (pp. 51–76). Bloomington: Solution Tree Press.

Dede, C., Honan, J. P., & Peters, L. C. (2005). Scaling up success. Lessons from technology-based educational improvement . San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Devolder, A., van Braak, J., & Tondeur, J. (2012). Supporting self-regulated learning in computer-based learning envrionments: Systematic review of effects of scaffolding in the domain of science education. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 28 , 557–573.

Article   Google Scholar  

Erstad, O. (2013). Digital learning lives: Trajectories, literacies, and schooling . New York: Peter Lang Publishing Group.

Book   Google Scholar  

Eseryel, D., Law, V., Ifenthaler, D., Ge, X., & Miller, R. (2014). An investigation of the interrelationships between motivation, engagement and complex problem solving in game-based learning. Educational Technology and Society, 17 (1), 42–53.

EU Commission. (2006). Recommendation of the European Parliament and of the Council of the European Union on key competences for lifelong learning, L394/10 C.F.R. Brussels.

Ferrari, A. (2012). Digital competence in practice: An analysis of frameworks . EC JRC IPTS, Seville. Retrieved from: http://ftp.jrc.es/EURdoc/JRC68116.pdf

Ferrari, A. (2013). DIGCOMP: A framework for developing and understanding digital competence in Europe. Seville: European Commission Joint Research Centre Institute for Prospective Technological Studies.

Ferrari, A., Brecko, B. N., & Punie, Y. (2014). DIGCOMP: A framework for developing and understanding digital competence in Europe. Openeducation.eu. Retrieved from: https://www.openeducationeuropa.eu/sites/default/files/legacy_files/asset/Digital%20Literacies%20and%20eCompetence_In_depth_38_1_1.pdf

Fullan, M. (2007). Change forces: Probing the depths of educational reform . London: The Falmer Press.

Gordon, J., Halsz, G., Krawczyk, M., Leney, T. et al. (2009). Key competences in Europe. Opening doors for lifelong learners across the school curriculum and teacher education . Warsaw: Center for Social and Economic Research on behalf of CASE Network. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/education/more-information/moreinformation139_en.htm

Griffin, P., McGaw, B., & Care, E. (Eds.). (2012). Assessment and teaching of 21st century skills . Dordrecht: Springer.

Hague, C., & Payton, S. (2010). Digital literacy across the curriculum . Bristol: Futurelab.

Karseth, B., & Sivesind, B. (2010). Conceptualising curriculum knowledge within and beyond the national context. European Journal of Education, 45 (1), 102–120.

Kereluik, K., Mishra, P., Fahnoe, C., & Terry, L. (2013). What knowledge is of most worth: Teacher knowledge for 21st century learning. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 29 (4), 127–140.

Klieme, E., Hartig, J., & Rauch, D. (2008). The concept of competence in educational contexts. In J. Hartig, E. Klieme, & D. Leutner (Eds.), Assessment of competencies in educational contexts (pp. 3–22). Göttingen: Hogrefe & Huber Publishers.

Kozma, R. B. (Ed.). (2003). Technology, innovation and educational change. A global perspective . Eugene: International Society for Technology in Education.

Law, N. (2009). Mathematics and science teachers’ pedagogical orientations and their use of ICT in teaching. Education and Information Technologies, 14 , 309–323.

Law, N., Chow, S.-L., & Fu, K. W. (in press). Digital citizenship and social media: A curriculum perspective. In J. Voogt, G. Knezek, R. Christensen, & K.-W. Lai (Eds.), Handbook of Information Technology in Primary and Secondary Education (2nd ed.) . Cham: Springer International Publishing.

Lee, H.-S., Linn, M. C., Varma, K., & Liu, O. L. (2010). How do technology-enhanced inquiry science units impact classroom learning? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47 (1), 71–90.

Lieberman, A., & Pointer Mace, D. (2008). Teacher learning. The key to educational reform. Journal of Teacher Education, 59 (3), 226–234.

Looney, J., & Michel, A. (2014). KeyCoNet’s conclusions and recommendations for strengthening key competence development in policy and practice. Final report. European Schoolnet: Brussels. Retrieved from: http://keyconet.eun.org/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=78469b98-b49c-4e9a-a1ce-501199f7e8b3&groupId=11028

McEneaney, E. H. (2015). Finding knowledge on the internet: Implications for the knowledge-driven curriculum. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 47 (6), 802–819. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2015.1089941 .

Nieveen, N., Fisser, P., Muller, A., & Voogt, J. (2014). Create the debate: Towards a set of design principles for national curriculum debates and dialogues with technology support . Enschede: SLO/UvA.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD]. (2005). The definition and selection of key competencies [Executive Summary]. Retrieved from: http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/47/61/35070367.pdf

Pellegrino, J. W., & Hilton, M. L. (Eds.) (2012). Education for life and work: Developing transferable knowledge and skills in the 21st century . Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.

Roblyer, M. D. (2008). Virtual schools: Redefining ‘a place called school’. In J. Voogt & G. Knezek (Eds.), International handbook of information technology in primary and secondary education (pp. 695–711). Berlin: Springer.

Rychen, D. S., & Salganik, L. H. (Eds.). (2001). Defining and selecting key competencies . Göttingen: Hogrefe & Huber.

Salganik, L. H., Rychen, D. S., Moser, U., & Konstant, J. (1999). Projects on competencies in the OECD context: Analysis of theoretical and conceptual foundations . Neuchâtel: Swiss Federal Statistical Office.

Sawyer, K. (Ed.). (2006). The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Supovitz, J., Daly, A., & Del Fresno, M. (2015). #commoncore Project. Retrieved from: http://www.hashtagcommoncore.com

Thomas, D., & Brown, J. S. (2011). A new culture of learning. Cultivating the imagination for a world of constant change . Lexington: Douglas Thomas and John Seely Brown.

Travers, K. J., & Westbury, I. (1989). The IEA study of mathematics I: Analysis of mathematics curricula . Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Trilling, B., & Fadel, C. (2009). 21st century skills. Learning for life in our times . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Tyler, R. (1949). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Van den Akker, J. (2003). Curriculum perspectives: An introduction. In J. van den Akker, W. Kuiper, & U. Hameyer (Eds.), Curriculum landscapes and trends (pp. 1–10). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Voogt, J., & Pareja Roblin, N. (2010). 21st century skills . Enschede: University of Twente.

Voogt, J., & Pelgrum, H. (2005). ICT and curriculum change. Human Technology; An Interdisciplinary Journal on Humans in ICT Environments, 1 (2), 157–175.

Voogt, J., & Roblin, N. P. (2012). A comparative analysis of international frameworks for 21st century competences: Implications for national curriculum policies. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 44 (3), 299–321.

Voogt, J., Erstad, O., Dede, C., & Mishra, P. (2013). Challenges to learning and schooling in the digital networked world of the 21st century. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29 (5), 403–413.

Voogt, J., Nieveen, N., & Klöpping, S. (2017). Curriculum overload: a literature study. Report prepared under the auspices of the OECD future of education and skills 2030 project . Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam.

Walker, D. (2003). Fundamentals of curriculum: Passion and professionalism . Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Wells, G., & Claxton, G. (Eds.). (2002). Learning for life in the 21st century . Oxford: Blackwell.

Williamson, B. (2013). The future of the curriculum. School knowledge in the digital age . Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Yadav, A., Sands, P., Good, J., & Lishinki, A. (in press). Computer science and computational thinking in the curriculum: Research and practice. In J. Voogt, G. Knezek, R. Christensen, & K.-W. Lai (Eds.), Handbook of Information Technology in Primary and Secondary Education (2nd ed.) . Cham: Springer International Publishing.

Young, M. F. D. (2008). Bringing knowledge back in: From social constructivism to social realism in the sociology of education . London: Routledge.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Education, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway

Department of Child Development and Education, University of Amsterdam/Windesheim, University of Applied Sciences, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ola Erstad .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

University of Amsterdam , Amsterdam, The Netherlands

University of North Texas , Denton, Texas, USA

Gerald Knezek

Rhonda Christensen

University of Otago , Dunedin, New Zealand

Kwok-Wing Lai

Section Editor information

Department of Child Development and Education, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG

About this entry

Cite this entry.

Erstad, O., Voogt, J. (2018). The Twenty-First Century Curriculum: Issues and Challenges. In: Voogt, J., Knezek, G., Christensen, R., Lai, KW. (eds) Second Handbook of Information Technology in Primary and Secondary Education . Springer International Handbooks of Education. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-53803-7_1-2

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-53803-7_1-2

Received : 31 October 2017

Accepted : 01 November 2017

Published : 21 February 2018

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-319-53803-7

Online ISBN : 978-3-319-53803-7

eBook Packages : Springer Reference Education Reference Module Humanities and Social Sciences Reference Module Education

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Chapter history

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-53803-7_1-2

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-53803-7_1-1

• Find a journal
• Track your research