education 4 0 essay

More From Forbes

Understanding education 4.0: the machine learning-driven future of learning.

• Share to Facebook
• Share to Twitter
• Share to Linkedin

Individuals and societies face motivating, inspiring and potentially broad difficulties as a result of digitization and virtualization in education. Artificial intelligence and machine learning in education will be important drivers of growth and innovation, just like they have been in all industries. Individuals should be able to build more comprehensive expertise, knowledge and abilities, as well as release their innovative potential, using smart and intelligent educational methods and resources. While AI-powered solutions have been around for a while in the EdTech field, the industry has been sluggish to embrace them.

On the other side, the pandemic drastically altered the landscape, forcing instructors to rely on technology for virtual instruction. AI has the potential to improve both learning and teaching, assisting the educational industry in evolving to benefit both students and teachers. The education system can follow businesses and mega-corporations to ensure the advancement of learning and prepare their students for jobs roles incorporating enterprise AI. It refers to the use of advanced machine learning and cognitive skills to uncover and distribute organizational knowledge, data and information in a manner that closely resembles how humans search for and analyze information.

What is Education 4.0?

Technology began to penetrate the educational process in the new millennium, and both students and teachers began to use technology in fundamental ways (otherwise known as Education 2.0). Education 3.0 emerged as technology advanced, especially the widespread adoption of a more user-generated internet. This enabled students to access their own information sources, the ability to learn electronically and platforms to communicate with teachers and other students. Education became more networkable, with students having their own direct link to a range of different knowledge sources, rather than being concentrated on a back-and-forth between students and teachers.

Education 4.0 is a technique of learning that is connected with the fourth industrial revolution and focuses on transforming the future of education through advanced technology and automation. Smart technology, artificial intelligence and robotics are part of this industrial revolution. They are all affecting our daily lives. Universities must prepare their students for a world in which cyber-physical systems are ubiquitous across all industries if they are to continue to produce successful graduates. This entails incorporating technology into the curriculum, altering the learning process entirely, and leveraging technology to enhance the university experience.

Understanding Education 4.0- The Machine Learning-Driven Future of Learning

What Implementation of Enterprise AI Means?

Enterprise AI applications can solve challenges that were previously unsolvable. Enterprise AI applications have a plethora of uses. Organizations across practically every industry are now deploying corporate AI solutions to solve a wide range of use cases, ranging from predictive maintenance of industrial assets to machine learning for a wide range of tasks. Every field is transforming with advancing technology. It is vital to adapt the educational system to society's new development requirements; in these new circumstances, only knowledge learned will help to the growth of Industry 4.0 and its safe development.

Best Travel Insurance Companies

Best covid-19 travel insurance plans.

Employees in industries, as well as organizations, are affected by the introduction of new technology. Due to the divergence of processes, specialized skills and human activities for Industry 4.0 may differ depending on the industrial sector. There have been several adjustments in terms of talents and tasks. As a result, human capital will play a large role in the workplace, and occupations and learning will be redirected.

What Are the Benefits of Machine Learning in Education?

Preparing Students for Evolving Industries

As cyber-physical systems become more integrated into many businesses, the skills needed for employees will undoubtedly change. According to McKinsey Digital research, 60% of all vocations could have at least a third of their tasks automated as a result of the fourth industrial revolution.

As a result of technology's ability to keep us linked at all times, employment responsibilities are becoming increasingly flexible and adaptable. Education 4.0 is all about changing with the changes, and for higher education institutions, that means figuring out what their future graduates will need.

Automating Basic Administrative Tasks

Teachers devote a significant amount of time to administrative tasks. The application of artificial intelligence and machine learning in education can aid in the automation of activity grading and assessment. Administrative tasks can be automated, allowing teachers to spend more time with pupils and improving the learning experience.

Offering Personalized Education

The goal of using AI and machine learning in education is not to replace instructors but to assist them in better understanding each student's potential and limitations.

Providing Constructive Criticism

Teachers can use AI in the classroom to help them enhance the instructions they provide their students as well as make learning more engaging and exciting. Students benefit from immediate feedback, since it enables them to see where they are doing wrong and how they may improve.

Offering Access to All Pupils

Learning becomes universally accessible for all pupils when AI and machine learning is used in the classroom. It can help students to overcome geographical hurdles to learning.

Universities must integrate their teaching and operations with technology improvements in order to prepare future graduates for work. Education 4.0 is a method of learning that is aligned with the fourth industrial revolution. Involving AI in the field of business and corporate environment is changing the need an employer is searching for in the candidate. With machine learning in education, every job prospect will be different.

Adaption of learning incorporating artificial intelligence and machine learning in education will keep the students up to date. It highlights the importance of preparing pupils to face and overcome problems. To stay up with the times, old educational paradigms must be revisited with a futuristic perspective. Students should be able to master the abilities required by rapidly changing technology, they should be guided rather than instructed, and knowledge should be made available rather than fed to them. Both general and vocational education should strive to prepare students to compete in the labor market.

• Editorial Standards
• Reprints & Permissions

Information

• Author Services

Initiatives

You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.

All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .

Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.

Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.

Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.

Original Submission Date Received: .

• Active Journals
• Find a Journal
• Proceedings Series
• For Authors
• For Reviewers
• For Editors
• For Librarians
• For Publishers
• For Societies
• For Conference Organizers
• Open Access Policy
• Institutional Open Access Program
• Special Issues Guidelines
• Editorial Process
• Research and Publication Ethics
• Article Processing Charges
• Testimonials
• Preprints.org
• SciProfiles
• Encyclopedia

Article Menu

• Subscribe SciFeed
• Recommended Articles
• Google Scholar
• on Google Scholar
• Table of Contents

Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.

Please let us know what you think of our products and services.

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

Components of education 4.0 in 21st century skills frameworks: systematic review.

1. Introduction

2. materials and methods, 2.1. context of the study, 2.2. education 4.0 in industry 4.0, 2.3. learning dimensions, 2.4. stakeholders in the competency frameworks of the 21st century, 2.5. teaching and learning methods, 2.6. systematic literature review method, 4. discussion, 5. conclusions, institutional review board statement, informed consent statement, data availability statement, acknowledgments, conflicts of interest.

• UN. The Sustainable Development Goals Report. 2020. Available online: https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/report/2020/ (accessed on 5 August 2021).
• McLennan, M. The Global Risks Report. 2021 16th Edition. Available online: http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_The_Global_Risks_Report_2021.pdf (accessed on 5 August 2021).
• Partnership for 21st Century Skills. Framework for 21st Century Learning. 2019. Available online: https://bit.ly/3FS9JBC (accessed on 2 April 2021).
• Tecnologico de Monterrey. Razonamiento para la Complejidad. In Tecnologico de Monterrey, 7 Competencias con las que el Tec Busca Preparar a sus Estudiantes ; 2019; Available online: https://bit.ly/3AsM6NL (accessed on 12 October 2021).
• Morin, E.; Pakman, M. Introducción al Pensamiento Complejo ; Gedisa: Barcelona, Spain, 2011; ISBN 978-84-7432-518-8. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ramírez-Montoya, M.S.; Álvarez-Icaza, I.; Sanabria-Zepeda, J.C.; López-Caudana, E.O.; Alonso, P.E.; Miranda, J. Scaling Complex Thinking for Everyone through Open Science: A Conceptual Methodological Framework. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Technological Ecosystems for Enhancing Multiculturality TEEM21, Barcelona, Spain, 26–29 October 2021; University of Barcelona: Barcelona, Spain, 2021; pp. 806–811. [ Google Scholar ]
• Chaka, C. Skills, Competencies and Literacies Attributed to 4IR/Industry 4.0: Scoping Review. IFLA J. 2020 , 46 , 369–399. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Álamo Venegas, J.J.; Alonso Díaz, L.; Yuste Tosina, R.; López Ramos, V.M. La Dimensión Educativa de la robótica: Del Desarrollo del Pensamiento al Pensamiento Computacional en el aula. Campo Abierto. Rev. de Educ. 2021 , 40 , 2. Available online: https://bit.ly/3jbxUkG (accessed on 15 September 2021).
• van Laar, E.; van Deursen, A.J.A.M.; van Dijk, J.A.G.M.; de Haan, J. The Relation between 21st-Century Skills and Digital Skills: A Systematic Literature Review. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2017 , 72 , 577–588. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Noh, S.C.; Karim, A.M.A. Design Thinking Mindset to Enhance Education 4.0 Competitiveness in Malaysia. IJERE 2021 , 10 , 494. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• González-Salamanca, J.C.; Agudelo, O.L.; Salinas, J. Key Competencies, Education for Sustainable Development and Strategies for the Development of 21st Century Skills. A Systematic Literature Review. Sustainability 2020 , 12 , 10366. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gleason, N.W. (Ed.) Higher Education in the Era of the Fourth Industrial Revolution ; Springer: Singapore, 2018; ISBN 9789811301933. Available online: https://library.oapen.org/handle/20.500.12657/23279 (accessed on 16 September 2021).
• Hong, C.; Ma, W.W.K. (Eds.) Introduction: Education 4.0: Applied Degree Education and the Future of Work. In Applied Degree Education and the Future of Work ; Lecture Notes in Educational Technology; Springer: Singapore, 2020; pp. 1–13. ISBN 9789811531415. [ Google Scholar ]
• PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC). Will Robots Really Steal Our Jobs? An International Analysis of the Potential Long-Term Impact of Automation 2018. Available online: https://www.pwc.co.uk/economic-services/assets/international-impact-of-automation-feb-2018.pdf (accessed on 25 October 2021).
• Bonfield, C.A.; Salter, M.; Longmuir, A.; Benson, M.; Adachi, C. Transformation or Evolution? Education 4.0, Teaching and Learning in the Digital Age. High. Educ. Pedagog. 2020 , 5 , 223–246. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Karlos de Sousa Oliveira, K.; André Cavalcante de Souza, R. Habilitadores Da Transformação Digital Em Direção à Educação 4.0. Renote 2020 , 18 , 1. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ciolacu, M.; Tehrani, A.F.; Beer, R.; Popp, H. Education 4.0—Fostering Student’s Performance with Machine Learning Methods. In Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE 23rd International Symposium for Design and Technology in Electronic Packaging (SIITME), Constanta, Romania, 26–29 October 2017; pp. 438–443. [ Google Scholar ]
• Miranda, J.; Navarrete, C.; Noguez, J.; Molina-Espinosa, J.-M.; Ramírez-Montoya, M.-S.; Navarro-Tuch, S.A.; Bustamante-Bello, M.-R.; Rosas-Fernández, J.-B.; Molina, A. The Core Components of Education 4.0 in Higher Education: Three Case Studies in Engineering Education. Comput. Electr. Eng. 2021 , 93 , 107278. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• García Vaquero, M.; Sánchez-Bayón, A.; Lominchar, J. European Green Deal and Recovery Plan: Green Jobs, Skills and Wellbeing Economics in Spain. Energies 2021 , 14 , 4145. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Alles, M.A. Desarrollo del Talento Humano Basado en Competencias ; Ediciones Granica SA: Buenos Aires, Argentina, 2007. [ Google Scholar ]
• Duque Ceballos, J.L.; García Solarte, M.; Hurtado Ayala, A. Influencia de la inteligencia emocional sobre las competencias laborales: Un estudio empírico con empleados del nivel administrativo. Estud. Gerenc. 2017 , 33 , 250–260. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• OCDE. The Future of Education and Skills. Education 2030. 2018. Available online: http://go.uv.es/1fDpQnn (accessed on 12 August 2021).
• Fadel, C.; Bialik, M.; Trilling, B.; Schleicher, A. Four-Dimensional Education: The Competencies Learners Need to Succeed ; Center for Curriculum Redesign: Boston, MA, USA, 2015; ISBN 978-1-5186-4256-2. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cedefop. Annual Report 2014 ; Cedefop Information Series; Publications Office of the European Union: Luxembourg, 2015; Available online: https://bit.ly/3AOReKz (accessed on 1 September 2021).
• Himmetoglu, B.; Aydug, D.; Bayrak, C. Education 4.0: Defining the teacher, the student, and the school manager aspects of the revolution. Turk. Online J. Distance Educ. 2020 , 21 , 12–28. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Aziz Hussin, A. Education 4.0 Made Simple: Ideas For Teaching. IJELS 2018 , 6 , 92. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Salmon, G. May 4 Be with You: Creating Education 4.0. J. Learn. Dev. 2019 , 6 , 95–115. Available online: https://bit.ly/3aKxXiX (accessed on 10 September 2021).
• Shirazi, F.; Hajli, N. IT-Enabled Sustainable Innovation and the Global Digital Divides. Sustainability 2021 , 13 , 9711. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ferrari, A. DIGCOMP: A Framework for Developing and Understanding Digital Competence in Europe. 2013. Available online: https://tinyurl.com/yc9at8t6 (accessed on 5 April 2021).
• Bacigalupo, M. Entrepreneurship as a competence. In World Encyclopedia of Entrepreneurship ; Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham, UK, 2021. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rayna, T.; Striukova, L. Fostering Skills for the 21st Century: The Role of Fab Labs and Makerspaces. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2021 , 164 , 120391. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Vivas-Fernandez, L.; Sáez-López, J.M. Integración de la robótica educativa en Educación Primaria. Rev. Latinoam. De Tecnol. Educ.-RELATEC 2019 , 18 , 107–129. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wing, J.M. Computational thinking. Commun. ACM 2006 , 49 , 33–35. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ramírez-Montoya, M.S. Modelos y Estrategias de Enseñanza para Ambientes Innovadores ; Editorial Digital: Monterrey, México, 2012. [ Google Scholar ]
• Pradas Montilla, S. La Neurotecnología Educativa. Claves Del Uso de La Tecnología En El Proceso de Aprendizaje. ReiDoCrea Rev. Electrónica De Investig. Docencia Creat. 2017 , 6 , 40–48. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Deja, M.; Rak, D.; Bell, B. Digital Transformation Readiness: Perspectives on Academia and Library Outcomes in Information Literacy. J. Acad. Librariansh. 2021 , 47 , 102403. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Seufert, C.; Oberdörfer, S.; Roth, A.; Grafe, S.; Lugrin, J.-L.; Latoschik, M.E. Classroom Management Competency Enhancement for Student Teachers Using a Fully Immersive Virtual Classroom. Comput. Educ. 2022 , 179 , 104410. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Silva-Díaz, F.; Carrillo-Rosúa, J.; Fernández-Plaza, J.A. Uso de Tecnologías Inmersivas y Su Impacto En Las Actitudes Científico-Matemáticas Del Estudiantado de Educación Secundaria Obligatoria En Un Contexto En Riesgo de Exclusión Social. Educar 2021 , 57 , 119–138. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Santos, A.F.; Barber III, D.; Harris, M.; Haymore, J. What Can Universities Learn From Organizational Creative Space Design Research? A Look at Maker Spaces. JHETP 2021 , 21 . [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wong, C.; Shih, Y. Enhance STEM Education by Integrating Product Design with Computer-Aided Design Approaches. CADandA 2021 , 19 , 694–711. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• van den Hurk, A.; Meelissen, M.; van Langen, A. Interventions in Education to Prevent STEM Pipeline Leakage. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 2019 , 41 , 150–164. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Daher, W.; Awawdeh Shahbari, J. Design of STEM Activities: Experiences and Perceptions of Prospective Secondary School Teachers. Int. J. Emerg. Technol. Learn. 2020 , 15 , 112. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Kayan-Fadlelmula, F.; Sellami, A.; Abdelkader, N.; Umer, S. A Systematic Review of STEM Education Research in the GCC Countries: Trends, Gaps and Barriers. Int. J. STEM Educ. 2022 , 9 , 2. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Brereton, P.; Kitchenham, B.A.; Budgen, D.; Turner, M.; Khalil, M. Lessons from Applying the Systematic Literature Review Process within the Software Engineering Domain. J. Syst. Softw. 2007 , 80 , 571–583. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Higgins, J.P.; Green, S. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions 4.2.6. Cochrane Libr. 2006 , 4 , 49–55. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kitchenham, B. Procedures for Performing Systematic Reviews ; Keele University: Keele, UK, 2004; Volume 33, pp. 1–26. Available online: https://bit.ly/2XnwE6y (accessed on 20 September 2021).
• Chambers, D.; Rodgers, M.; Golder, S.; Pepper, C.; Todd, D.; Woolacott, N. Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. 2009. Available online: https://bit.ly/3FSM9oe (accessed on 20 September 2021).
• García-Peñalvo, F.J. Mapeos Sistemáticos de Literatura, Revisiones Sistemáticas de Literatura y Benchmarking de Programas Formativos. 2017. Available online: http://repositorio.grial.eu/handle/grial/1056 (accessed on 20 September 2021).
• Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.; Brennan, S.E.; et al. The PRISMA 2020 Statement: An Updated Guideline for Reporting Systematic Reviews. BMJ 2021 , 372 , n160. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sifaki, E.; Petousi, V. Contextualising Harm in the Framework of Research Misconduct. Findings from Discourse Analysis of Scientific Publications. IJSD 2020 , 23 , 149. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]

Click here to enlarge figure

Share and Cite

González-Pérez, L.I.; Ramírez-Montoya, M.S. Components of Education 4.0 in 21st Century Skills Frameworks: Systematic Review. Sustainability 2022 , 14 , 1493. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14031493

González-Pérez LI, Ramírez-Montoya MS. Components of Education 4.0 in 21st Century Skills Frameworks: Systematic Review. Sustainability . 2022; 14(3):1493. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14031493

González-Pérez, Laura Icela, and María Soledad Ramírez-Montoya. 2022. "Components of Education 4.0 in 21st Century Skills Frameworks: Systematic Review" Sustainability 14, no. 3: 1493. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14031493

Article Metrics

Article access statistics, further information, mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals

• Reference Manager
• Simple TEXT file

People also looked at

Review article, is education 4.0 a sufficient innovative, and disruptive educational trend to promote sustainable open education for higher education institutions a review of literature trends.

• Department of English Studies, College of Human Sciences, University of South Africa, Pretoria, South Africa

The paper explored whether Education 4.0 is a sufficient innovative, and disruptive educational trend to promote sustainable open education for higher education institutions (HEIs). To investigate whether this is the case, the paper reviewed published journal articles that provide real-world, empirical applications of Education 4.0 in the higher education (HE) sector that are intended to promote and realize the United Nations’ (UN) sustainable development goals (SDGs). In particular, the paper focused on aspects of SDGs related to education (or to sustainable open education), and which had relevance to the HE sector. Three of the findings of this review study are worth mentioning. First, real-world Education 4.0 is confined to certain countries, and is more concentrated to a few countries and to a few HEIs. Second, ten sets of Education 4.0 technologies were classified as disruptive, scalable, and sustainable, and as holding the prospect to promote sustainable open higher education in accord with the UN’s SDGs. Thirdly, most of the soft-skill affordances cited (especially the twenty-first century skills cited), lend themselves well as stylized facts as they predate Education 4.0 and are, thus, not exclusive to it.

Introduction

During crises and human pandemics, new changes and unexpected challenges emerge, necessitating new ways of doing things. This seems to have been the case with the current novel coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. The pandemic has not only caused major sudden changes, but it has also put a halt to the old ways of doing things in different spheres of life. Education in general and, particularly, higher education (HE) has not been immune to such pandemic-induced abrupt changes and their associated challenges. Elsewhere, Chaka (2020a) refers to this rapid change scenario as episodic outbursts and massive disruptions accompanied by a series of punctuated changes. And, these punctuated changes appear to continue unabated, given the flowing and ebbing of the viral infections and the on- and off-lockdown measures across the globe. Prior to the pandemic, and more so during and post-pandemic, certain digital innovations were already being touted as possible solutions for, especially, the HE sector.

One such digital innovation is Education 4.0. Since its pre-pandemic days, Education 4.0 was already being seen as holding the prospects of being a game-changer within the HE sector. Indeed, Sharma (2019) points out that Education 4.0 will enable students to remotely access courses and register for them based on diverse open online courses, voice calling, and video chatting. In this particular setup, data will be leveraged to extrapolate courses in which students will likely to enroll in large numbers and to predict their likely future employability based on the knowledge and skill sets they possess ( Salomon, 2019 ). As such, Education 4.0 is seen as a disruptive educational innovation capable of unbundling the HE system in favor of repackaged, personalized, and peer-to-peer learning offerings ( Fisk, 2017 ). In this instance, the disruptive nature of Education 4.0 and its game-changing capability serve as one of its main differentiators. This relates, primarily, to reconfiguring the HE system, disaggregating its course offerings, and the kinds of technologies through which students are to access its course offerings and interact with those course offerings. This means that Education 4.0 also represents an educational and innovative disruptor. At one point, information technology (IT) was touted as a game-changer ( Oblinger, 2012 ) and as an educational and innovative disruptor, too.

Against this background, a case can be made that Education 4.0 is what open and inclusive higher education needs in order for different nations to be able to achieve the United Nations’ sustainable development goals (SDGs). But not only that, rather, the rupturing effects of the COVID-19 pandemic require a rethinking of how HE is offered. Therefore, this paper set out to explore whether Education 4.0 is a sufficient innovative, and disruptive educational development to promote sustainable open education for higher education institutions (HEIs). To do so, it reviewed published journal articles that provided real-world, empirical applications of instances of Education 4.0 in the HE sector that were intended to promote and realize the UN’s SDGs ( Ally and Wark, 2020 ; Bai et al., 2020 ; Zizka and Varga, 2020 ). The review took into account that Education 4.0 is a broad, overarching concept that is informed by the Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR) ( Chaka, 2020b ). It also considered its variation such as Higher Education 4.0 and cognate technologies related to 4IR such as artificial intelligence (AI), automation, robotics, blockchain, big data, cloud computing, augmented reality (AR), virtual reality (VR), and the Internet of Things (IoT) ( Ally and Wark, 2020 ; Chaka, 2020b ), as long as they had a specific relation and a direct application to Education 4.0 and sustainable open education, or SDGs.

Situating Education 4.0 and Innovation

There are different types of HEIs. Conventionally, the two main types of HEIs are traditional universities (either research-intensive or non-research-intensive universities) and universities of applied sciences (cf. Andreadakis and Maassen, 2019a ). Mostly, the typology of HEIs varies according to countries in which HEIs are situated. For instance, some countries have a more nuanced differentiation between their HEIs. Classic examples are technical/technological HEIs, medical universities, business and management sciences HEIs, pedagogical HEIs, and theological HEIs (see Eurydice, 2021 ). So, this HE landscape typology is important to note.

Since this paper’s main focus is on HE, its use of Education 4.0 is solely restricted to this sector, notwithstanding the fact that this term often has a generic application. That is, Education 4.0 is used to embody the same meaning as Higher Education 4.0 or University 4.0. The paper posits that Education 4.0 is an educational derivative of the Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR). In this sense, it is informed and underpinned by the same cognate and flagship technologies as those attributed to 4IR. Some of these technologies are: autonomous robots; artificial intelligence (AI); cloud computing; quantum computing; big data; smart sensors; virtual reality (VR); augmented reality (AR); the Internet of Things (IoT); or Industrial Internet of Things (IIoT); simulation; additive manufacturing; 3D printing; holograms; and drones ( Keser and Semerci, 2019 ; Reaves, 2019 ; Salomon, 2019 ; Sharma, 2019 ; Bongomin et al., 2020 ; Butt et al., 2020 ; Chaka, 2020b , 2021 ). A digital fusion and embedding of these cluster technologies within a cyber-physical system (CPS) is a key differentiating factor of this 4.0 technological development. Two of Education 4.0’s variants, or two of its equivalents within the HE landscape are Higher Education 4.0 ( Chea and Huan, 2019 ; Sharma, 2019 ; Goh and Abdul-Wahab, 2020 ; Adnan et al., 2021 ) and University 4.0 ( Gueye and Exposito, 2020 ). In addition, on a comparative basis, Education 4.0 is an advanced version of its preceding iterations such as Education 1.0, Education 2.0, and Education 3.0 in the same way as 4IR is an advanced iteration of its predecessor technologies in the form of Industrial Revolution 1.0, Industrial Revolution 2.0 and Industrial Revolution 3.0, and Industry 1.0, Industry 2.0 and Industry 3.0, respectively ( Chea and Huan, 2019 ; Sharma, 2019 ; Butt et al., 2020 ; Chaka, 2020b ; Miranda et al., 2021 ). Another similarity is that of Web 4.0 when it is compared to Web 1.0, Web 2.0, and Web 3.0 ( Keser and Semerci, 2019 ; Salomon, 2019 ).

In this context, Education 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, and 4.0 can each be seen as a download education, an open-access education, a knowledge-producing education, and an innovation-producing education ( Himmetoglu et al., 2020 )., respectively. For her part, Sharma (2019) points out that these four versions of education each represents: the era of memorization; the dawn of Internet-powered education; the era of education as consumption; and the advent of a change-driven education. Butt et al. (2020) characterize each of these four iterations as corresponding to: a one-way, passive educational process (Education 1.0); a collaborative education with passive and active learning (Education 2.0); an open, collaborative, flexible, and creative education (Education 3.0); and an education marked by a dynamic, independent, active, innovative, and self-directed learning (Education 4.0).

Notwithstanding the differing definitions attached to these four codes of education, what is clear is that the last iteration (Education 4.0) is conceptually, radically different from its three other counterparts. In light of the preceding characterization of Education 4.0, for this paper, Education 4.0 is, especially in the HE sector, an education that leverages and is powered by all of the currently available 4IR technologies including the relevant future technologies as long as they are classified under the 4IR code name. In this instance, the paper proposes three types of Education 4.0: a fully integrated Education 4.0, a near-fully integrated Education 4.0, and a partial Education 4.0. The first is as described in the preceding sentence; the second entails the use of a number of different Education 4.0 technologies, but not all of them; and the third incorporates the use of one to three different Education 4.0 technologies. This distinction is critical as Education 4.0 is, at times, like 4IR, vaguely constructed. Overall, whatever type it is and whatever permutation it assumes, Education 4.0 is about integrating and leveraging these technologies for educational purposes ( Gueye and Exposito, 2020 ).

Core Features of Education 4.0

Education 4.0 comprise certain core features. These features include:

• Integration and fusion of various digital technologies (e.g., the 4IR technologies mentioned above and others not cited above) and mobile technologies

• Flipped classrooms, massive open online courses (MOOCs), social network-based learning, smart campuses, seamless learning environments, and open educational resources (OERs)

• Open and distance learning, open access, lifelong learning, application-oriented learning, adaptive learning, individualized learning, and self-paced learning ( Himmetoglu et al., 2020 ).

Most of these features such as those listed in the last two bullets, bar smart campuses, are not new, though. That is, they do not owe their origin to 4IR/Industry 4.0 nor did they come into existence due to 4IR/Industry 4.0. It is their incorporation into the 4IR/Industry 4.0 paradigm that makes them eligible features for Education 4.0. Importantly, it is the digitization and automation, and the integration and harnessing of human and technological capabilities within the physical, digital, and biological spaces of education that spawn Education 4.0. Concerning the HE sector, this development results in Higher Education 4.0 or University 4.0.

As a concept, innovation predates the advent of Education 4.0. For example, throughout human history, innovation has permeated different spheres of life in sector-specific ways. The same is true of education as a sector with multiple layers. Elsewhere, Serdyukov (2017) maintains that innovation entails developing a novel idea, a change, and a disruption. To this effect and narrowly, there is educational innovation or technological innovation. Serdyukov (2017) also argues that innovation is revolutionary or evolutionary (also see Osolind, 2012 ), and disruptive or sustaining (also see Yu and Hang, 2010 ; Christensen et al., 2018 ; Kylliäinen, 2019 ). Revolutionary innovation leads to a wholesale change, resulting in a complete replacement of the old system with the new one; evolutionary innovation is about incremental improvements, and ensures continuity. Disruptive innovation leads to a radical change of the whole system, while sustaining innovation preserves the current status quo ( Serdyukov, 2017 ). The paper contends that Education 4.0 can assume any of these four permutations in terms of its innovativeness. Moreover, the innovative form that Education 4. 0 assumes is likely to determine whether it is sustainable, disruptive, and scalable or not, and whether it can lead to sustainable open higher education in line with the UN’s SDGs or not.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study was to explore whether Education 4.0 is a sufficient innovative, and disruptive educational trend to promote sustainable open education for HEIs. To investigate whether this was the case, the paper reviewed sixteen published journal articles that documented real-world, empirical applications of Education 4.0 in the HE sector that were intended to promote and realize the UN’s sustainable development goals (SDGs) ( Ally and Wark, 2020 ; Zizka and Varga, 2020 ; de S Oliveira and de Souza, 2022 ). In particular, the study focused on elements related to either education for sustainable development (ESD) ( Cebrián and Junyent, 2015 ; Andreadakis and Maassen, 2019b ) or education or sustainable open HE, and which had relevance to the HE sector. Based on this, the study had the following research questions (RQs):

• RQ1: Which HEIs are reported to apply Education 4.0, in which countries are they situated, and who are the reported participants?

• Which types of Education 4.0 technologies do these HEIs apply as reported by the reviewed articles?

• RQ2: What are the affordances offered by the utilized Education 4.0 technologies?

• RQ3: What innovation classification does this Education 4.0 fall under?

• RQ4: What academic disciplines or subject areas is it applied to?

• RQ5: Does the reported Education 4.0 have a sustainable open higher education element and focus on the UN’s sustainable development goals (SDGs)?

Search Strategy and Full-Text Downloading

A literature search strategy for eligible and relevant articles was carried out online from June 2021 to October 2021. It entailed determining and locating suitable bibliographic databases. Thirteen online databases, which included two search engines, were identified. These were: Google; Bing; Education Resource Information Center (ERIC); IEEE Xplore; ScienceDirect; Scopus; SpringerLink; Taylor & Francis Online; Wiley Online Library; Emerald Insight; Sematic Scholar; Google Scholar; and Microsoft Academic ( Figure 1 ). Keywords, in search string combinations, were developed and iteratively queried into these databases according to their bespoke requirements. Some of these search string combinations were as follows:

Figure 1. The PRISMA flow chart and the online search platforms.

• “Education 4.0” AND “technologies for sustainable development in higher education”

• “Education 4.0 technologies” AND “sustainable development goals in higher education”

• “Education 4.0” AND “technologies for sustainable open education in higher education”

• “Education 4.0” AND “sustainable development goals” AND sustainable open education AND technologies

• “Education 4.0” AND “sustainable* open education” in higher education

Education 4.0 was varied or swapped with Industry 4.0 and Higher Education 4.0, and with any of the 4IR technologies. Quotation marks were employed to ensure that entire phrases are located within a document; AND was used to identify groups of keyword phrases available in a document; and the asterisk (*) was employed to ensure that all possible suffixes for a word were locatable within a document

All qualifying full-text articles that were located in the above-mentioned databases and search engines were downloaded. They were, then, saved in thirteen separate folders named according to the names of the databases and search engines from which they were downloaded. These folders were archived in File Explorer. The total number of the full-text articles saved in these folders was 300 (see Figure 1 ).

If there are journal articles that focus on real-world, empirical applications of Education 4.0 together with its related technologies in the HE sector and that deal with an element of sustainable open higher education or with UN’s SDGs as highlighted in this paper, but which do not explicitly mention Education 4.0 as one of their keywords as indicated in the search string combinations provided above, then, they could have been missed by the search strategy employed here. However, the possibility of this happening and of the bubble effect —a selection bias—(see Piasecki et al., 2018 ) is mitigated by the fact that most of the aggregating algorithms used by the thirteen online databases are intelligent enough to locate such journal articles. Additionally, the use of these different online databases compensates for one another’s weaknesses. This is particularly the case when different search engines and different online bibliographic databases are employed together for search purposes. For example, Piasecki et al. (2018) point out that even though Google Search and Google Scholar have drawbacks, they, nevertheless, are appropriate for certain forms of qualitative systematic reviews when used together.

Eligibility Criteria and Selection of Studies

Even though this was a literature review paper, it employed aspects of a systematic literature review (SLR) in its research design, or what Snyder (2019) calls semi-systematic review. It also utilized the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines ( Moher et al., 2009 ) in its search strategies. Based on this, the study had eligibility (inclusion) criteria, examples of which included the following:

• Articles published between 2015 and October 2021

• Articles published in peer-reviewed journals and published in internationally accredited conference proceedings (e.g., IEEE and Procedia)

• Articles that simultaneously focused on Education 4.0 (and its variations, e.g., Industiry4.0 or/Industrie 4.0) and elements of sustainable open education in higher education/elements of SDGs in higher education

• Articles that provided real-world instances/cases of the implementation of Education 4.0 in given higher education institutions involving students

• Articles that did not report pure prototypes or pure prototype implementations

• Articles that were not pure reviews/not pure theoretical or conceptual reflections of Education 4.0

• Articles published in English

The year 2015 was used as a starting point because it is the year in which the UN declared its SDGs ( Ally and Wark, 2020 ; Zizka and Varga, 2020 ). A four-phase selection process was conducted for identifying, choosing, and screening qualifying articles. This process was based on the PRISMA flowchart ( Figure 1 ). The RISMA approach has transparency and clarity as one of key features ( Liberati et al., 2009 ; Moher et al., 2009 ). In the first phase, articles were searched and identified each time search string combinations had been queried in each of the 13 online bibliographic databases. Collectively, 4,515 articles were returned by this phase. This phase was followed by the second one in which the 4,515 returned articles were screened. The screening involved reviewing the titles and abstracts of these articles. After conducting this process, 300 articles were retained, while 4,215 were eliminated for irrelevance and for being duplicates. During the third phase, the remaining 300 articles were reviewed in terms of their abstracts. This process resulted in 250 articles being excluded due to duplicates and irrelevance. In the fourth phase, only 16 articles were retained as their contents and foci satisfied the eligibility criteria mentioned above. These 16 articles were the major data source from which the data sets of the current study were extracted.

Data Extraction, Coding and Inter-Rater Reliability

Data sets, which were informed by twelve article characteristics, were extracted from the 42 full-text articles mentioned earlier. These characteristics were: author(s); country; year of publication; name of HEI; participants; a fully integrated Education 4.0, a near-fully integrated Education4.0, or a partially integrated Education 4.0; types of Education 4.0 technologies used; affordances offered by Education 4.0 technologies used; innovation classification; academic disciple(s)/subject area(s); a sustainable open HE element; and SDGs (also see the RQs of this study). A coding scheme based on these twelve characteristics was developed. The researcher and two independent coders extracted the data sets from the 16 articles using this coding scheme. To maintain data extraction and data coding consistency, interrater reliability (IRR) as recommended by Landis and Koch (1977) and Belur et al. (2018) was used. For instance, Landis and Koch (1977) offer the following range of the kappa (κ) scores and their interpretation for IRR: 0.81–1.00 = near perfect; 0.61–0.80 = substantial; 0.41–0.60 = moderate; 0.21–0.40 = fair; 0.00–0.20 = slight; < 0 = poor. The IRR of the three coders was 0.80, which was substantial.

Data Analysis

Data sets were analyzed using quantitative content analysis and qualitative content analysis ( Vaismoradi et al., 2013 ; Vaismoradi and Snelgrove, 2019 ). First, quantitative content analysis involved calculating frequencies of occurrence of the twelve article characteristics mentioned above. Second, qualitative content analysis entailed analyzing themes formulated from the twelve article characteristics. Thereafter, themes emerging from these characteristics were iteratively compared with a view to synthesizing them. This means that for each full-text article, firstly, the author(s), the country of origin of the author(s), the year of publication, the name of an HEI involved, and the participants mentioned were identified. Secondly, each full-text article was evaluated on whether the type of Education 4.0 it mentioned was fully, near-fully, or partially integrated as explained earlier. Thirdly, each full-text article was evaluated in terms of the types of Education 4.0 technologies used in it, the affordances provided by those technologies, and the innovation classification of those technologies. The innovation classification related to revolutionary, evolutionary, or disruptive innovation as discussed earlier (see Osolind, 2012 ; Serdyukov, 2017 ; Christensen et al., 2018 ; Kylliäinen, 2019 ). Fourthly and lastly, each full-text article was assessed according to the academic disciples it mentioned, the sustainable open HE element it had, and its reference to an SDG.

All of these descriptors informed the findings presented below. Moreover, in the discussion of the findings, these descriptors in the form of themes have been synthesized by drawing both similarities and differences.

The findings presented in this section are grounded on the data sets extracted from the 16 articles reviewed in this paper and are structured according to the manner in which these data sets have been codified, categorized, and analyzed as described above. Additionally, these findings have been framed in line with the twelve articles’ characteristics investigated in this paper, and in response to the six research questions (RQs) posed in this paper.

Authors’ Countries of Origin, Years of Publication, Higher Education Institutions, Participants, and Academic Disciplines/Subjects

As illustrated in Table 1 , all together, these articles were written by authors from fourteen countries. Except for one article, all the other articles were co-authored. Four articles are from Brazil, and two articles are from Malaysia and Mexico, respectively. While the remaining articles are from a single country each, one article represents four countries. Nine of the reviewed articles were published in 2020, whereas three of them were published in 2021. In all, the reviewed articles mentioned 20 HIEs. Two articles mentioned three HEIs each, with one of them having not specified the names of its three HEIs. Of the seventeen HEIs specified by their names, two of them, Federal University of Paraná (Brazil) and Tecnologico de Monterrey (Mexico) feature twice in the reviewed articles. Additionally, of the seventeen specified HEIs, ten are universities of applied sciences, while seven are traditional universities.

Table 1. Authors’ countries of origin, years of publication, HEIs, participants, and academic disciplines/subjects.

Barring two HEIs (Art. 1 and Art. 13) and save for one of the three collective HEIs (Art. 5), all the other reviewed articles mentioned their participants. All of these participants were mainly university students, except for one cohort that comprised both students and the community and another cohort that consisted of participants of all ages. Seven articles provided the exact number of the participants involved in in their Education 4.0 activities, with one article providing an approximate number only. The overall number of the specified participants is 824. The other articles did not specify the number of the participants involved in their Education 4.0 activities.

Pertaining to academic disciplines/subjects, all the articles specified their respective academic disciplines/subjects involved in Education 4.0 initiatives. While some of the articles stated a combination of academic disciplines and academic subjects, others mentioned specific academic subjects such as English language, Mandarin, and mathematics. The most cited overall academic discipline is engineering, and is followed by computer science.

Education 4.0 Technologies, Types of Education 4.0, Innovation Classification, Sustainable Open HE Elements, and Sustainable Development Goals

As depicted in Figure 2 , apart from two articles (Art. 9 and Art. 14), all the other articles have offered the specific names of the technologies used in their Education 4.0 projects. Of these, one article (Art. 5) has provided eight specific names of its Education 4.0 technologies, while two articles (Art. 10 and Art. 12) have mentioned nine and ten specific names of their respective Education 4.0 technologies. By contrast, two articles (Art. 2 and Art. 3) have cited two specific Education 4.0 technologies each, and two other articles (Art. 11 and Art. 15) have cited one specific Education 4.0 technology apiece. The most cited Education 4.0 technologies are robots (robotics) ( n = 8), including an AI-powered chatbot. They are followed by automation (n = 6), IIoT ( n = 5), and 3D technology ( n = 5), with IoT ( n = 4), simulation ( n = 4), and CPS (= 4) closely trailing these three sets of Education 4.0 technologies.

Figure 2. Articles and Education 4.0 technologies used. N/A, not applicable; N/M, not mentioned; SO HE, sustainable open higher education; SDGs, sustainable development goals.

Of all the Education 4.0 technologies mentioned, the ones cited by four articles are fully integrated, and those cited by two articles are near-fully integrated. The other Education 4.0 technologies mentioned by the remaining ten articles are partially integrated. Ten sets of Education 4.0 technologies mentioned by ten articles have been classified as a disruptive innovation, whereas five sets of technologies have been categorized as an evolutionary innovation and one set of technologies has been identified as a sustaining innovation.

Eleven articles did not mention whether their Education 4.0 had any element of sustainable open higher education, or whether it lent itself to such a type of education. The remaining five articles hinted at the sustainability of their either open teaching and learning, open higher education, open approach, or open innovation. Similarly, nine articles did not mention whether their Education 4.0 had any sustainable development goals (SDGs). On the other hand, the remaining articles stated the following regarding their Education 4.0 vis-à-vis SDGs: open source; sustainable development; sustainable education; sustainable teaching and learning; sustainable manufacturing; and sustainable infrastructure.

Education 4.0 Technology Affordances

All the 16 articles have provided the affordances offered by their respective Education 4.0 technologies ( Table 2 ). Depending on the number of technologies used in each instance, the affordances stated are few as in Art. 2, Art. 3, Art. 7, Art. 9, Art. 10, and Art. 14, or many as exemplified by Art. 4, Art. 6, Art. 13, Art. 15, and Art. 16. Some of the affordances provided are more detailed than others as is the case with Art. 2, Art. 8, Art. 15, Art. 16. Mainly, the hard-skill affordances mentioned by these sixteen articles are technology-specific or technology-responsive.

Table 2. Articles and the affordances offered by their Education 4.0 technologies.

This part discusses the findings as presented in the previous section. Additionally, this part responds to the twelve articles’ characteristics investigated in this paper and to the six research questions (RQs) of this paper. On this basis, the purpose of this study was to explore whether Education 4.0 is a sufficient innovative, and disruptive educational trend to promote sustainable open education for HEIs. As pointed out in the previous section, of the seventeen HEIs specified by their names, ten were universities of applied sciences, while seven were traditional universities. Three countries had the larger share of the reviewed articles, with one country (Brazil) having the largest share of the articles, overall. These three countries also had the most authors of the reviewed articles, with a single country (Brazil), again, having the largest share of the authors of these articles. Similarly, of the HEIs featuring in the reviewed articles, the most were from the same three countries. In this instance, two HEIs from two countries each—Federal University of Paraná (Brazil) and Tecnologico de Monterrey (Mexico)—featured twice in the reviewed articles, more than is the case with the other HEIs. To this effect, mere Google and Bing searches of the two HEIs using the string searches, Federal University of Paraná—Education 4.0 and Tecnologico de Monterrey—Education 4.0, returned 444,000 (Google)/7,500,000 (Bing) and 732,000 (Google)/252,000 (Bing) results for each of these two HEIs, respectively, at the time of writing this paper ( Figure 3 ). While these search results may reflect different variables related to these two HEIs, they nonetheless illustrate the high rate of Education 4.0 instances associated with these two HEIs. Another factor here is that most articles ( n = 9) were written in 2020 than in any other years in which these reviewed articles were published.

Figure 3. Google and Bing search results for two HEIs.

The majority of the participants mentioned are university students, especially undergraduate students. However, two articles mentioned composite participants: students and community members, and all-age participants. What can be extrapolated from this participant composition is that in the reviewed articles, Education 4.0 largely involved undergraduate students even though in two cases it involved both students and the general public. Slightly fewer articles provided the exact number of the participants that took part in their Education 4.0 initiatives. Collectively, these participants totaled 824. This means that the exact number of participants involved in the Education 4.0 activities not mentioned by many articles ( n = 9) remains unknown.

With reference to academic disciplines/subjects, all the reviewed articles stated the academic disciplines/subjects that were involved in their respective Education 4.0 projects. Some of the articles provided a combination of general academic disciplines and academic subjects, while others stated specific academic subjects, of which English language, Mandarin, and mathematics are examples. This implies that some of the Education 4.0 initiatives mentioned by the reviewed articles occurred within specific, micro-academic subject areas (or within a given module), whereas others took place within generic or macro-academic disciplines. Of these generic academic disciplines, engineering is the most frequently cited, followed by computer science. This development serves as the basis to argue that in this context, engineering is leading the pioneering of Education 4.0 initiatives and seems to be experimenting more with Education 4.0 than is the case with other academic disciplines. Following it closely in this regard is computer science (see Bongomin et al., 2020 ; cf. Chaka, 2020b , 2021 ).

As highlighted in the previous section, barring two articles, all the other articles mentioned the specific names of the technologies utilized in their Education 4.0 projects. These ranged from robots, automation, and simulation to IoT, IIoT, and CPS to AI, AR, VR and sensors to 3D technologies. In addition, there were big data and cloud computing (cf. Bongomin et al., 2020 ; Chaka, 2021 ). Four sets of Education 4.0 technologies cited by four articles were identified as fully integrated, while two sets of technologies were distinguished as near-fully integrated. The rest of the other sets of Education 4.0 technologies were identified as partially integrated. This identification is based on the three types of Education 4.0 proposed earlier by this paper. This particular identification is as follows: a fully integrated Education 4.0 uses many or all of the Education 4.0 technologies; a near-fully integrated Education 4.0 entails the use of a number of different Education 4.0 technologies but not all of them; and a partially integrated Education 4.0 incorporates the use of one to three different Education 4.0 technologies. When deployed as fully integrated or as near-fully integrated Education 4.0 technologies, these technologies have the potential to make Education 4.0 a sufficient innovative, and disruptive educational trend that promotes sustainable open education for HEIs.

Ten sets of Education 4.0 technologies cited by ten articles were classified as a disruptive innovation, or as disruptive Education 4.0 technologies, while five sets were categorized as evolutionary in their innovation. One set was found to have a sustaining innovation. This classification borrows from Serdyukov (2017) categorization of innovation as described earlier, and is used here to refer to the educational innovation associated with the Education 4.0 technologies cited by the reviewed articles. Those sets of technologies that have been categorized as disruptive or as having a disruptive innovation are scalable and sustainable. As such, based on this classificatory criterion, these types of Education 4.0 technologies have the prospect of promoting sustainable open higher education in line with the UN’s sustainable development goals (SDGs) (see Cebrián and Junyent, 2015 ; Ally and Wark, 2020 ; Zizka and Varga, 2020 ; de S Oliveira and de Souza, 2022 ). As mentioned earlier, overall, five articles hinted at their open teaching and learning, their open higher education, their open approach, and their open innovation being sustainable. In terms of SDGs, seven articles characterized their Education 4.0 as either sustainable education/sustainable teaching and learning, open source, sustainable development, sustainable manufacturing, or sustainable infrastructure. As argued above, for any Education 4.0 in the HE sector to be open and sustainable, its Education 4.0 technologies must be fully or near-fully integrated, disruptive, and scalable. Only in this way and format can it be regarded as sufficiently innovative.

Finally, all the reviewed articles provided the affordances associated with their respective Education 4.0 technologies. Some of these affordances were specific and detailed, whereas others were general and non-specific. The examples of the former are “chatting about 1,001 items related to English using the chatbot” (Art. 2), “enabling students to develop heuristics in the base code so that they could add new robotic skill sets such as scoring barriers … and goal-kick defense” (Art. 8), and “critical and analytical thinking … problem-solving” (Art. 16). Instances of the latter are “facilitating active learning and enabling students acquire Engineering Education 4.0 competences (Art. 4) and “equipping students with the fundamental tools for managing automated production environments and their computerized control systems” (Art. 13). In addition, the hard-skill Education 4.0 technology affordances referenced by the reviewed articles are mainly technology-specific or technology-responsive. This means that they are technology-bound, or can only occur with the cited Education 4.0 technologies.

Moreover, most of the soft-skill affordances such as communication skills, social and cultural awareness skills, critical and analytical thinking skills, creativity, problem-solving skills, innovation, empathy, responsibility, teamwork, and leadership skills referenced by some of the reviewed articles are twenty-first century skills that predate the Education 4.0 era. As such, they are not exclusive to Education 4.0 nor to 4IR/Industry 4.0. Elsewhere, Chaka (2020b , p. 372) refers to soft skills or twenty-first century skills “as stylized facts for 4IR.” He borrows the phrase stylized facts from Helfat (2007) work in which it means widely accepted observations or empirical truths (also see Gomes et al., 2015 ; Hirschman, 2016 ). Even in this paper, the soft-skill affordances attributable to the Education 4.0 technologies mentioned by the reviewed articles lend themselves well as stylized facts as they do not need Education 4.0 technologies for them to be acquired by students.

Conclusion, Limitations, and Recommendations

Firstly, in the context of the reviewed articles, it appears that real-world Education 4.0 is confined to certain countries, and is more concentrated to a few countries and to a few HEIs. These countries, together with their respective HEIs, are geographically confined to South America. This is so notwithstanding the fact that the search strings employed in this paper were not country- or HEI-specific. Secondly, more articles dealing with real-world Education 4.0 initiatives were published in 2020. Again, this is so despite the fact that the search strings used were not year-specific.

Thirdly, according to the reviewed articles, most real-world Education 4.0 activities took place at both universities of applied sciences and traditional universities, and involved university undergraduate students. This includes those instances in which the exact number of participants was not provided. Fourthly, most of the reported Education 4.0 initiatives involved both specific academic subjects and generic academic disciplines. Regarding the latter, engineering is a generic academic discipline involved in most Education 4.0 projects, followed by computer science. Fifthly, four sets of Education 4.0 technologies and two sets of Education 4.0 technologies were identified as fully and near-fully integrated, respectively. Sixthly, ten sets of Education 4.0 technologies were classified as disruptive, scalable, and sustainable, and as holding the prospect to promote sustainable open higher education in accord with the UN’s SDGs. Eighthly and lastly, the reviewed articles provided both specific and generic Education 4.0 technology affordances. However, with reference to most of the soft-skill affordances cited (especially the twenty-first century skills cited), the paper has argued that they are stylized facts as they predate Education 4.0 and are, thus, are not exclusive to it.

With regard to limitations, the current study was confined to the online databases it searched. In this case, it only reviewed sixteen articles. It did not review other forms of publications such as books and book chapters, and in doing so, it could have overlooked other real-world Education 4.0 initiatives documented in such publications. Nevertheless, it omitted these publications for uniformity and consistency purposes. Additionally, the reviewed articles were limited to those published in English.

Finally, more research on the real-world applications of Education 4.0 in the HE sector is needed. This is particularly so as there appears to be more conceptual and theoretical academic papers that focus on Education 4.0 than those that report on practical, real-world applications of Education 4.0 at HEIs. Despite the limitations associated with the current paper, the paper lends itself well as one of the key reference points for future studies on the real-world applications of Education 4.0 in the HE sector.

Author Contributions

The author confirms being the sole contributor of this work and has approved it for publication.

Conflict of Interest

The author declares that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s Note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Acknowledgments

I thank the two other raters who, together with him, helped code the data for this study.

Adnan, A. H. M., Karim, R. A., Shah, D. S. M., Tahir, M. H. M., and Ya Shak, M. S. (2021). Higher education 4.0 technologies: survey of immersive, interactive content development and materials deployment within a developing nation. J. Phys. Conf. Series. 1793, 1–12. doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/1793/1/012002

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Adnan, A. H. M., Karim, R. A., Tahir, M. H. M., Kamal, N. N. M., and Yusof, A. M. (2019). Education 4.0 technologies, industry 4.0 skills and the teaching of english in Malaysian tertiary education. Arab World. English. J. 10, 330–343. doi: 10.24093/awej/vol10no4.24

Adnan, A. H. M., Ya Shak, M. S., Karim, R. A., Tahir, M. H. M., and Shah, D. S. M. (2020). 360-degree videos, vr experiences and the application of education 4.0 technologies in malaysia for exposure and immersion. Adv. Sci. Technol. Eng. Syst. J. 5, 373–381. doi: 10.25046/aj050148

Ally, M., and Wark, N. (2020). Sustainable Development and Education in the Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR). Available online at: http://oasis.col.org/handle/11599/3698 (accessed October 20, 2021).

Google Scholar

Andreadakis, Z., and Maassen, P. (2019a). Germany in the Place of Universities in Society. Available online at: https://www.guc-hamburg.de/press/study-place-of-universities.pdf (accessed January 25, 2022).

Andreadakis, Z., and Maassen, P. (2019b). Japan in The Place of Universities in Society. Available online at: https://www.guc-hamburg.de/press/study-place-of-universities.pdf (accessed January 25, 2022)

Bai, C., Dallasega, P., Orzes, G., and Sarkis, J. (2020). Industry 4.0 technologies assessment: a sustainability perspective. Int. J. Produc. Econ. 229:107776. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2020.107776

Belur, J., Tompson, L., Thornton, A., and Simon, M. (2018). Interrater reliability in systematic review methodology: exploring variation in coder decision-making. Soc. Methods. Res. 50:00491241187993. doi: 10.1177/0049124118799372

Benis, A., Nelke, S. A., and Winokur, M. (2020). Training the next industrial engineers and managers about industry 4.0: a case study about challenges and opportunities in the COVID-19 Era. Sensors 21:2905. doi: 10.3390/s21092905

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Bonfield, A., Salter, M., Longmuir, A., Benson, M., and Adachi, C. (2020). Transformation or evolution?: education 4.0, teaching and learning in the digital age. High. Educ. Pedag. 5, 223–246. doi: 10.1080/23752696.2020.1816847

Bongomin, O., Ocen, G. G., Nganyi, E. O., Musinguzi, A., and Omara, T. (2020). Exponential Disruptive Technologies and the Required Skills of Industry 4.0. J. Eng. Art. 4280156, 1–17. doi: 10.1155/2020/4280156

Bushmeleva, N. A., Isupova, N. I., Mamaeva, E. A., and Kharunzheva, E. V. (2020). Peculiarities of engineering thinking formation using 3d technology. Eur. J. Contemp. Educ. 9, 529–545. doi: 10.13187/ejced.2020.3.529

Butt, R., Siddiqui, H., Soomro, R. A., and Asad, M. A. (2020). Integration of industrial revolution 4.0 and iots in academia: a state-of-the-art review on the concept of education 4.0 in Pakistan. Int. Technol. S. Educ. 17, 337–354. doi: 10.1108/ITSE-02-2020-0022

Cebrián, G., and Junyent, M. (2015). Competencies in education for sustainable development exploring the student teachers’ views. Sustainability 7, 2768–2786. doi: 10.3390/su7032768

Chaka, C. (2020a). Higher education institutions and the use of online instruction and online tools and resources during the COVID-19 Outbreak – an online review of selected U.S. and SA’s Universities. Res. Sq. [Preprint]. doi: 10.21203/rs.3.rs-61482/v1

Chaka, C. (2020b). Skills, competencies and literacies attributed to 4ir/industry 4.0: scoping review. IFLA J. 46, 369–399. doi: 10.1177/0340035219896376

Chaka, C. (2021). COVID-19 as a prime driver of rapid technological experimentation in higher-education teaching and learning: an overview of reviews. Zeitschrift Hochschulentwicklung. 16, 17–36. doi: 10.3217/zfhe-16-03/02

Chea, C. C., and Huan, J. T. J. (2019). Higher Education 4.0: The Possibilities and Challenges. J. Soc. Sci. Hum. 5, 81–85.

Christensen, C. M., McDonald, R., Altman, E. J., and Palmer, J. E. (2018). Disruptive innovation: an intellectual history and directions for future research. J. Manag. Stud. 55, 1043–1078. doi: 10.1111/joms.12349

Ciolacu, M. I., Svasta, P., Hartl, D., and Görzen, S. (2020). Education 4.0: Smart Blended Learning Assisted by Artificial Intelligence, Biofeedback and Sensors. Available online at: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9301034 (accessed October 14, 2021).

Hirschman, D. (2016). Stylized facts in the social sciences. Sociol. Sci. 3, 604–626. doi: 10.17718/tojde.770896

de S Oliveira, K. K., and de Souza, R. A. C. (2022). Digital transformation towards education 4.0. Info. Educ. 1–26. doi: 10.15388/infedu.2022.13

dos Silva, D. E. S., de Oliveira Sousa, A., Oliveira, M. R., Sobrinho, C. M., Todt, E., and Valentim, N. M. C. (2020). Education 4.0: robotics projects to encourage 21st century skills. Rev. Novas Tecnol. Educ. 18, 450–459. doi: 10.22456/1679-1916.110285

Elbestawi, M., Centea, D., Singh, I., and Wanyama, T. (2018). SEPT learning factory for industry 4.0 education and applied research. Proc. Manuf. 23, 249–254. doi: 10.1016/j.promfg.2018.04.025

Eurydice. (2021). Types of Higher Education Institutions. Available online at: https://eacea.ec.europa.eu/national-policies/eurydice/printpdf/5830_en (accessed January 25, 2022).

Fisk, P. (2017). Education 4.0 the Future of Learning Will Be Dramatically Different, in School and throughout Life. Available online at: https://www.peterfisk.com/2017/01/future-education-young-everyone-taught-together/ (accessed June 11, 2021).

Goh, P. S.-C., and Abdul-Wahab, N. (2020). Paradigms to drive higher education 4.0. Int. J. Learn. Teach. Educ. Res. 19, 159–171. doi: 10.26803/ijlter.19.1.9

Gomes, N. D., Cerqueira, P. A., and Almeida, L. A. (2015). A survey on software piracy empirical literature: stylized facts and theory. Inform. Econ. Policy 32, 29–37. doi: 10.1016/j.infoecopol.2015.07.008

Gueye, M., and Exposito, E. (2020). University 4.0: The Industry 4.0 Paradigm Applied to Education. Available online at: https://hal-univ-pau.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-02957371/document (accessed January 27, 2022).

Helfat, C. E. (2007). Stylized facts, empirical research and theory development in management. Strat .Organ. 5, 185–192. doi: 10.1177/1476127007077559

Himmetoglu, B., Aydug, D., and Bayrak, C. (2020). Education 4.0: defining the teacher, the student, and the school manager aspects of the revolution. Turk. Online. J. Dist. Educ. 2, 12–28.

Keser, H., and Semerci, A. (2019). Technology trends, education 4.0 and beyond. Cont. Educ. Res. J. 9, 39–39. doi: 10.18844/cerj.v9i3.4269

Kylliäinen, J. (2019). Types of Innovation – The Ultimate Guide with Definitions and Examples. Available online at: https://www.viima.com/blog/types-of-innovation (accessed January 25, 2022).

Landis, J. R., and Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 33, 159–174. doi: 10.2307/2529310

Liberati, A., Altman, D. G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gøtzsche, P. C., Ioannidis, J. P. A., et al. (2009). The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ. 339:b2700. doi: 10.1136/bmj.b2700

López, H. A., Ponce, P., Molina, A., Ramírez-Montoya, M. S., and Lopez-Caudana, E. (2021). Design framework based on TEC21 educational model and education 4.0 implemented in a capstone project: a case study of an electric vehicle suspension system. Sustainability 13:5768. doi: 10.3390/su13115768

Marcial, D. E. (2020). Education 4.0: disrupting education towards creativity, innovation, and commercialization. Int. J. Sci. Eng. Sci. 4, 25–33.

Miranda, J., Navarrete, C., Noguez, J., Molina-Espinosa, J.-M., Ramírez-Montoya, M.-S., Navarro-Tuch, S. A., et al. (2021). The Core Components of Education 4.0 in Higher Education: Three Case Studies in Engineering Education. Comp. Elec. Eng. 93, 1–13. doi: 10.1016/j.compeleceng.2021.107278

Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., and Altman, D. G. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ. 339:b2535. doi: 10.1136/bmj.b2535

Oblinger, D. G. (2012). Game Changers: Education and Information Technologies. Available online at: https://www.educause.edu/research-and-publications/books/game-changers-education-and-information-technologies (accessed November 2, 2021).

Osolind, K. (2012). Revolutionary vs Evolutionary Innovation. Available online at: www.reinventioninc.com/revolutionvsevolution (accessed November 10, 2018).

Piasecki, J., Waligora, M., and Dranseika, V. (2018). Google search as an additional source in systematic reviews. Sci. Eng. Ethics 24, 809–810. doi: 10.1007/s11948-017-0010-4

Porubčinová, M., Novotná, I., and Fidlerová, H. (2020). The use of education 4.0 tools in tertiary education system in Slovakia. Info. Technol. Learn. Tools. 80, 161–175. doi: 10.33407/itlt.v80i6.4004

Prieto, M. D., Sobrino, ÁF., Soto, L. R., Romero, D., Biosca, P. F., and Martínez, L. R. (2019). “Active learning based laboratory towards engineering education 4.0,” in Proceedings of the 24th IEEE International Conference Emerging Technologies and Factory Automation , (Zaragoza: University of Zaragoza), 776–783. doi: 10.1109/ETFA.2019.8869509

Reaves, J. (2019). 21st Century Skills and the Fourth Industrial Revolution: A Critical Future Role for Online Education. Available online at: https://onlineinnovationsjournal.com/streams/immersive-online-education/4f6fa2666b8cd098.html (accessed October 11, 2021).

Salomon, G. (2019). May the fourth be with you: creating education 4.0. J. Learn. Dev. 6, 95–115. doi: 10.5694/mja2.51020

Serdyukov, P. (2017). Innovation in education: what works, what doesn’t, and what to do about it. J. Res. Innov. Teach. Learn . 10, 4–33. doi: 10.1108/JRIT-10-2016-0007

Sharma, P. (2019). Digital Revolution of Education 4.0. Int. J. Eng. Adv. Technol. 9, 3558–3564. doi: 10.35940/ijeat.A1293.129219

Silva, D. E., Sobrinho, C. M., and Valentin, N. M. (2020). “TAEP4.0: teacher assistance educational process to promote 21st century skills in the context of education 4.0,” in Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Computer Supported Education , 1, 2491–2259. doi: 10.5220/0009387702490259 [Epub ahead of print].

Snyder, H. (2019). Literature Review as a Research Methodology: An Overview and Guidelines. J. Bus. Res. 104, 333–339. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.07.039

Vaismoradi, M., and Snelgrove, S. (2019). Theme in Qualitative Content Analysis and Thematic Analysis. F. Qual. Soc. Res. 20:23. doi: 10.17169/fqs-20.3.3376

Vaismoradi, M., Turunen, H., and Bondas, T. (2013). Content analysis and thematic analysis: implications for conducting a qualitative descriptive study. Nurs. Health Sci. 15, 398–405. doi: 10.1111/nhs.12048

Yoshino, R. T., Pinto, M. M. A., Pontes, J., and Treinta, F. T. (2020). Educational test bed 4.0: a teaching tool for industry 4.0. Eur. J. Eng. Educ. 45, 1002–1023. doi: 10.1080/03043797.2020.1832966

Yu, D., and Hang, C. C. (2010). A reflective review of disruptive innovation theory. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 12, 435–452. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2370.2009.00272.x/full

Zizka, L., and Varga, P. (2020). Education 2030: Aligning Sustainable Development Goals (SDGS) to and for Higher Education. Available online at: https://library.iated.org/view/ZIZKA2020EDU (accessed June 11, 2021).

Keywords : higher education, Education 4.0, fourth industrial revolution, Industry 4.0, sustainable open higher education, innovation

Citation: Chaka C (2022) Is Education 4.0 a Sufficient Innovative, and Disruptive Educational Trend to Promote Sustainable Open Education for Higher Education Institutions? A Review of Literature Trends. Front. Educ. 7:824976. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2022.824976

Received: 29 November 2021; Accepted: 24 March 2022; Published: 28 April 2022.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2022 Chaka. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Chaka Chaka, [email protected]

This article is part of the Research Topic

Open Education for Sustainable Development: Contributions from Emerging Technologies and Educational Innovation

• Corpus ID: 225658550

Essence of Education 4.0

• Adedamola A. Omotoso , S. Musa , M. Sadiku
• Published 11 June 2020
• International Journal of Trend in Scientific Research and Development

Figures from this paper

One Citation

Redefining the meaning of learning, 9 references, core components of education 3.0 and 4.0, an effect analysis of industry 4.0 to higher education, engineering education 4.0: — proposal for a new curricula, education 4.0 for tall thin engineer in a data driven society, engineering education 4.0: excellent teaching and learning in engineering sciences (english and german edition), education 4.0 — fostering student's performance with machine learning methods, related papers.

Showing 1 through 3 of 0 Related Papers

Everything You Need to Know About Education 4.0

In order to prepare future graduates for work, universities must align their teaching and processes with  technological  advanc ements .   

In the new millennium, technology  began  to infiltrate the education process, and both student s  and teacher s   started  to utilize technology in basic ways ( otherwise known as  Education 2.0).  

A s  this t echnology  advanced, including the mass infiltration of a more user-generated internet,  Education 3.0 was  formed.    

Students now had their own  access to information, the option to learn virtually, and platforms to easily connect with faculty and other students.  

Education was no longer centered upon a back and forth between student s  and teacher s , but instead took on a more networked approach, with students having their own direct connection to a variety of different information sources.  

This encouraged the development of a more personalized way of learning   where the student’s independence and unique approach to study was celebrated.  

However, we ’re  now on the cusp of a new phase ;  Education 4.0.   

What is Education 4.0?  

Education 4.0 is a desired approach to learning that aligns itself with the emerging  fourth  industrial revolution .   

This industrial revolution   focuses on  smart technology, artificial intelligence, and robotics; all of which  now impact our everyday lives.   

For universities to continue to produce successful graduates, they must  prepare their students for a world where  these cyber-physical systems are prevalent across all industries.  

This means teaching students about this technology as part of the curriculum, changing the   approach to learning altogether, and utilizing this technology to better improve the university experience.  

career options; something that will be  extremely  valuable in the future.   

Alongside their degrees, they might also look for job opportunities for students to allow them to gain work experience to support themselves financially and to build their skills in teamwork and communication in readiness for the careers ahead of them.

Preparing students  for evolving industries   

Cyber-physical systems are steadily becoming more integrated into various industries, inevitably affecting the skill s  requirements  for  employees.   

Research by McKinsey Digital  revealed that due to the  fourth  industrial revolution 60% of all occupations  could potentially  have at least  a third  of their activities automated.  

The topic of how  a rtificial  i ntelligence might affect jobs in the future was explored in our previous blog :   How will Artificial Intelligence Influence the Global Higher Education Sector?  

However, there is much more to consider than the potential disruption to the  hard   skills required for various  job  roles.   

The  fourth  industrial revolution will also impact the  soft  skills that students will need in the future.  

In 2016,  the   World Economic Forum  produced a report exploring these changes. They predicted that by 2020 ,  “more than a third of the desired core skill sets of most occupations will be comprised of skills that are not yet considered crucial to the job today.”  

Some of the soft skills they claim will soon become indispensable include complex problem solving, social skills, and process skills.  

T echnology  also  allows us to be constant ly  connected, and as a result ,  job  roles  are steadily becoming more flexible and  adaptable .   

Education 4.0 is about evolving with the times, and for higher education institutions ,  this means understanding what is required of their future graduates.   

Undoubtedly, in order to produce more graduates who are prepared to take on the future state of employment, universities must evolve, and accept that  changes to  some  traditional   processes are inevitable.  

A new approach to learning    

By aligning teaching and learning methods with the skills needed in the future, universities can be sure they are successfully preparing their students for the  fourth  industrial revolution.  

One method of doing so is by encouraging a ccelerated remote learning , which i s the idea that students will learn theoretical knowledge remotely using digital means, whilst ensuring any practical skills are still learnt face-to-face.   

This is a more flexible way of learning that requires accountability and good time management; skills that will be  relied  on  due to the rise in the freelance economy.  

The move towards this way of working will also  require  students  t o learn how to adapt quickly to new situations they may face in their evolving careers.   

Project-based learning highlight s  the importance of studying a wide set of skills that can then be applied to each scenario , as opposed to sticking to a set of skills directly linked to a specific job role.   

Learning practices such as SCALE-UP are increasing in popularity, with insti t utions such as  North Carolina State University  utilizing the practice.   

A SCALE-UP way of learning  has  students s i t at round tables scattered across the room, allowing the teacher to freely walk through the space and approach students if necessary.   

With this way of learning students are also  “working out problems on laptops and whiteboards, answering real-time quiz questions ,  and helping each other learn.”  

The approach to exams and assessments will also change, moving away from t he t raditional method of  a bsorbing  and relaying  a vast amount of information; skill s  not as necessary in the future.   

We may see students assessed instead  “by analyzing their learning journey through practical and experiential learning-based projects or field works . ”  

Of course ,  the biggest change we are likely to see as part of Education 4.0 is a deeper fusion of technology into the teaching process.   

The ultimate purpose of utilizing this technology and adopt ing  new methods  is  to place students at the center of the education process,  “shifting the focus from teaching to learning.”  

Adapting  to new realities   

Higher education institutions are  moving towards a more personalized way of learning.   

By utilizing data and tracking student performance, universities will be able to  identify  struggling students and provide optimized learning strategies to suit their needs.   

The various ways data is being used by universities is explored in more detail in our white paper:  Your A-Z Guide to Data in Higher Education .  

Education 4.0 embraces this advance in analytics and uses it to treat each student as an individual ,  understanding that everyone’s learning needs and desired outcomes will be different.  

There have also been talks of entirely customizable degrees, whereby a student does n’t  have to pick just  one  or  two  subjects to study, but instead  can  select modules from multiple programs.   

There are some ,  however, who are n’t  yet convinced by this approach and  view  this move away from the traditional degree structure  as  problematic.   

For example, Oxford Professor of Higher Education ,   Simon  Marginson ,  believes that ,  “ as long as they retain fixed curricula,  flexibility makes other institutions look of lower quality.”  

Yet the new approach to program structure is likely to create more versatile, well-rounded students who can adapt themselves to various career options; something that will be  extremely  valuable in the future.   

More QS Insights

What matters most to african students who are considering their study abroad options .

How are shifting policies and perceptions affecting the UK’s ability to attract international students? 

New rankings released! QS Best Student Cities 2025

Revolutionising education: Data-driven learning solutions for the future 

Sign up for industry insights

Receive the latest insights, expertise and commentary on the topics which matter most in higher education, straight to your inbox.

Education 4.0 Made Simple: Ideas For Teaching

• International Journal of Education and Literacy Studies 6(3):92

• Universiti Teknologi MARA

Discover the world's research

• 25+ million members
• 160+ million publication pages
• 2.3+ billion citations

• Trikinasih Handayani

• Yuliyanti Indriani Rahayu
• Abdallah Al-Zoubi

• Monica Ionita Ciolacu

• Ma. Catalina D. Cadiz
• Lalaine Ann F. Manuel
• Mercedita M. Reyes
• Florante P Ibarra

• Ezhilarasan Balamurali

• K.Santhosh Krishnan
• Mariya Aleksieva
• Zlatina Dimitrova

• E Bala Murali
• K. Gurusamy

• Recruit researchers
• Join for free
• Login Email Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google Welcome back! Please log in. Email · Hint Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google No account? Sign up

Rethinking Everything ... Innovative Strategist, Bestselling Author, and Inspiring Keynote Speaker

Global futurist. Innovative strategist. Bestselling author. Inspiring speaker.

Education 4.0 … the future of learning will be dramatically different, in school and throughout life.

January 24, 2017.

Global connectivity, smart machines, and new media are just some of the drivers reshaping how we think about work, what constitutes work, and how we learn and develop the skills to work in the future. The concept of a “100 year life” becoming the norm, and the majority of that spent studying and working, means that learning will be a lot more important, and different, for the next generations. Most people will have at least 6 different careers, requiring fundamental reeducating, whilst the relentless speed of innovation will constantly demand new skills and knowledge to keep pace, let alone an edge.

I recently delivered a keynote on “ Changing the Game of Education ” … a vision for the future of education, from schools to lifelong learning … how it will evolve, the drivers, inspirations and what will matter most.

Educationalists debate the many ways in which the content of education – at all levels – and the process of learning, will need to change over the years ahead. Disruptive innovation guru Clay Christiansen, for example, points to the dramatic unbundling of education from its current forms so that it can be personalised, repackaging, peer to peer and continuous. Whether it is classroom or workplace, online or offline, structured or unstructured, taught or learnt, standardised or not, certificated or not, then learning is likely to break free from our old mindsets in the coming years.

“Education 4.0” is my vision for the future of education, which

• responds to the needs of “industry 4.0” or the fourth industrial revolution, where man and machine align to enable new possibilities
• harnesses the potential of digital technologies, personalised data, open sourced content, and the new humanity of this globally-connected, technology-fueled world
• establishes a blueprint for the future of learning – lifelong learning – from childhood schooling, to continuous learning  in the workplace, to learning to play a better role in society.

“Changing the game”  is all about redefining the way an activity works. In general, its about

• who are the companies right now who are reshaping their industries, challenging the old rules and creating new ones, new ways of working, new ways of winning
• in my Gamechangers book I explored 100 of them – they are audacious, harnessing the power of ideas and networks to be intelligent, collaborative, and enabling people to achieve more.
• taking the principles of how these companies change the game – how can we apply that to the world of education?

“The future of education”  is therefore a new vision for learning, starting right now

• more important to know why you need something, a knowledge or skill, and then where to find it – rather than cramming your head full … don’t try to learn everything!
• built around each individual, their personal choice of where and how to learn, and tracking of performance through data-based customisation … whatever sits you
• learning together and from each other – peer to peer learning will dominate, teachers more as facilitators, of communities built around shared learning and aspiration.

Among the many discussions, innovations and general shifts in the world of learning – from school children to business executive – there are 9 trends that stand out:

• Diverse time and place. Students will have more opportunities to learn at different times in different places. eLearning tools facilitate opportunities for remote, self-paced learning. Classrooms will be flipped, which means the theoretical part is learned outside the classroom, whereas the practical part shall be taught face to face, interactively.
• Personalized learning. Students will learn with study tools that adapt to the capabilities of a student. This means above average students shall be challenged with harder tasks and questions when a certain level is achieved. Students who experience difficulties with a subject will get the opportunity to practice more until they reach the required level. Students will be positively reinforced during their individual learning processes. This can result in to positive learning experiences and will diminish the amount of students losing confidence about their academic abilities. Furthermore, teachers will be able to see clearly which students need help in which areas.
• Free choice. Though every subject that is taught aims for the same destination, the road leading towards that destination can vary per student. Similarly to the personalized learning experience, students will be able to modify their learning process with tools they feel are necessary for them. Students will learn with different devices, different programs and techniques based on their own preference. Blended learning, flipped classrooms and BYOD (Bring Your Own Device) form important terminology within this change.
• Project based. As careers are adapting to the future freelance economy, students of today will adapt to project based learning and working. This means they have to learn how to apply their skills in shorter terms to a variety of situations. Students should already get acquainted with project based learning in high school. This is when organizational, collaborative, and time management skills can be taught as basics that every student can use in their further academic careers.
• Field experience. Because technology can facilitate more efficiency in certain domains, curricula will make room for skills that solely require human knowledge and face-to-face interaction. Thus, experience in ‘the field’ will be emphasized within courses. Schools will provide more opportunities for students to obtain real-world skills that are representative to their jobs. This means curricula will create more room for students to fulfill internships, mentoring projects and collaboration projects (e.g.).
• Data interpretation. Though mathematics is considered one of three literacies, it is without a doubt that the manual part of this literacy will become irrelevant in the near future. Computers will soon take care of every statistical analysis, and describe and analyse data and predict future trends. Therefore, the human interpretation of these data will become a much more important part of the future curricula. Applying the theoretical knowledge to numbers, and using human reasoning to infer logic and trends from these data will become a fundamental new aspect of this literacy.
• Exams will change completely. As courseware platforms will assess students capabilities at each step, measuring their competencies through Q&A might become irrelevant, or might not suffice. Many argue that exams are now designed in such a way, that students cram their materials, and forget the next day. Educators worry that exams might not validly measure what students should be capable of when they enter their first job. As the factual knowledge of a student can be measured during their learning process, the application of their knowledge is best tested when they work on projects in the field.
• Student ownership. Students will become more and more involved in forming their curricula. Maintaining a curriculum that is contemporary, up-to-date and useful is only realistic when professionals as well as ‘youngsters’ are involved. Critical input from students on the content and durability of their courses is a must for an all-embracing study program.
• Mentoring will become more important. In 20 years, students will incorporate so much independence in to their learning process, that mentoring will become fundamental to student success. Teachers will form a central point in the jungle of information that our students will be paving their way through. Though the future of education seems remote, the teacher and educational institution are vital to academic performance.

These are exciting, provocative and potentially far-reaching challenges. For individuals and society, new educational tools and resources hold the promise of empowering individuals to develop a fuller array of competencies, skills and knowledge and of unleashing their creative potential.

Indeed, many of the changes underway call to mind the evocative words of Irish poet William Butler Yeats that, “Education is not about filling a bucket but lighting a fire.”

Technology has become integrated into virtually every aspect of work. And because we spend so much time working, work really is the place where we most directly feel the impact of developing technologies. From collaboration to productivity; from new ways of approaching workspace design to the increasing ability to work from virtually anywhere; and from hiring and recruitment to new skill sets—it is a time of experimentation for companies and organizations as trends in technology converge to change what it means to work.

• Summary of my keynote:   Changing the Game of Education
• Envision  Envisioning the Future of Education Technology
• IFTF  Future of Work Map
• IFTF  Future Work Skills 2020 Summary Map
• IFTF  From Educational Institutions to Learning Flows
• IFTF  Learning is Earning  in the USA Learning Economy
• KnowledgeWorks  Future of Learning Forecast 3.0 Infographic

5 commments on “Education 4.0 … the future of learning will be dramatically different, in school and throughout life.”

Good share, technology in education can be implemented in the right way using lockdown solution that allows students to focus on the apps, content & websites that are selected by teachers or admin using kiosk lockdown software like MobiLock Pro.

Wonderful article. Need more such information to keep myself updated.

Highly informative and relevant to designing new curriculum; Kindly post any update.

Those who have not failed may not have succeeded

Join the discussion Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Why Higher Education Institutions Should Focus on Education 4.0?

Education 4.0: The impact of today’s education has a very long tale. Tablets and smartphone supportive classrooms, online assessments, robotics, and Artificial Intelligence (AI), big data are all the infiltration of technology.

Thanks to those innovative minds and to the needs of the fourth industrial revolution, Education 4.0 is here— the fourth Education revolution, replacing the clumsy old procedures of conventional education. 

What is Education 4.0?

Education 4.0 is a purposeful approach to learning that lines up with the fourth industrial revolution and about transforming the future of education using advanced technology and automation.

Creativity is the foundation of Education 4.0. It emphasizes the need to prepare students to take on challenges, head-on.

To keep up with the change, one has to revisit the traditional educational paradigms with a futuristic approach. Students should be adept with skills set by the fast-changing technology; they should be led, but not instructed; information should be made accessible, but not fed to them.

Both general and vocational education should aim at making students skill-ready to compete with the outside labor force. 

Major trends of Education 4.0

We have tried to summarise the major trends of Education 4.0 here below.  

(i) A more personalized learning

Education 4.0 appreciates the individuality of every single student and their own pace of learning. Having a personalized way of teaching will have a greater impact on students to achieve their outcomes easily. 

With Artificial Intelligence and Cloud Computing, there are numerous tools available that tweak the whole teaching process as per the individual learner’s needs learning pace.

Faculty, on the other hand, will be able to easily identify the strengths and weaknesses of the students and provide instant feedback.

(ii) More remote learning opportunities

The cornerstone of Education 4.0 is making learning available anywhere, anytime with the set of e-learning tools that promote remote and self-paced learning. 

The Active Blended Learning (ABL) concept is picking up, where students get to be actively involved in learning beyond classrooms. This way, they end up mastering both practical and experiential learning. 

(iii) The plethora of education tools 

Education 4.0 offers a clear route to students by making tools and techniques handy in their learning environment. 

This means that the students will be able to choose the tools and techniques through which they want to acquire knowledge. Collaborative and engagement tools flipped learning, and blended learning are a few to mention.

(iv) Project-based learning

The project-driven approach that Education 4.0 supports helps students learn in a fun and interesting way! 

It shuns theoretical knowledge and prompts students to learn time management skills, organizational skills, collaborative skills, time management skills, much needed for their employment for the road ahead. 

(v) Easy and accurate assessment 

A more practical way of assessment comes into place with Education 4.0. There are both online and offline assessments and students get assessed on projects, assignments, and fieldwork.

(vi) Data at the fingertips

There are greater insights into the students learning journey with data analytics and reporting in Education 4.0. The statistical analysis allows teaching staff to learn where students exactly stand and guide them appropriately.  

How industry 4.0 affect the education industry?

The effect of Industry Revolution 4.0 has had on Education can never be ignored.   

With education 4.0, there’s a cultivating peer-to-peer learning atmosphere with students being able to learn collaboratively and from each other.

The role of teachers is that of facilitators. The curriculum and learning outcomes focus on complex 21st-century skills including problem-solving, critical thinking, creativity, people management, teamwork and collaboration, emotional intelligence, judgment and decision-making, service orientation, negotiation, and cognitive flexibility.  

Is 4.0 helping the education industry? Why do education institutions need curriculum 4.0? 

Education 4.0 is nothing but the curriculum of the future. It is about evolving with the times, and for higher education institutions, this means understanding what is required of their future graduates. 

World leaders have laid numerous predictions about the kind of jobs the future would bring up with technology and automation. Updating the content and delivery of the education system should be an urgency. 

McKinsey and Company’s recent analysis of Automation predicts that nearly 51% of the total job would be automated, which is shocking for job seekers and educators. If not addressed on time, the situation could lead to a serious level of unemployment in the coming future.   

A majority of hiring managers believe that AI will impact the types of skills their companies need.

The below graph is an indication of what the hiring managers would foresee in the tech-driven workforce transformation.

Source: Future of Jobs Survey - World Economic Forum

How can education institutions prepare students for Education 4.0?

The only way is by aligning industry requirements with education. Here are a few ways by which the same could be achieved;

Remodeling of Curriculum with special stress on futuristic subjects. With digitization and automation, a skill-based curriculum is an order of the day. Employers are running short of skilled workforce and bank on universities and educational institutions to upskill the present workforce. 

Building digital skills . Institutions should have modern workplace skills and focus on training their faculty to build digital skills to develop fully able students for their workplace.  Soft skills should be made indispensable with a mix of problem-solving, social skills, and process skills. 

Opt for digital tools for virtual learning (face to face) environments (VLEs) . This is picking up across the world where students and faculty gain remote access for teaching through LMS. Learning and teaching, accessing course content, online chat facilities, discussions, collaborations, peer teaching, blended learning, all happen in flexible hours. 

Tweaking of course delivery. There should be a synchronization between the Faculty and the curriculum taught. Faculty should be open to using technological applications to improve students’ cognitive learning abilities.

They should adapt to personalized adaptive learning techniques for a smarter learning approach to make the whole process fun and interesting.

A robust professional framework with career planning inter disciplines should be included. This aspect will futurize Indian education for building a workforce for enterprise 4.0. 

Technology built classrooms to be initiated across universities, colleges, and higher education institutions to deliver successful graduates for the cyber-physical systems prevalent across all industries.

This means building a technology-rich curriculum, transforming the learning approach, to better the student experience.

This education industrial revolution 4.0 focuses on modern and smart technology, AI, robotics, all of which influence our everyday lives.

Hence universities and colleges should gear up to this massive transformation of bringing technology-driven design into the curricula with the assistance of educationists and other visionaries. 

Giving today’s workforce the right tools will help create a more multifaceted society where everyone plays their part well, adding to a self-sustainable model of education. 

At Creatrix Campus we value the power digital technology has on transforming education and we are here to help you watch your step in every way possible. We know that the future of higher education is uncertain and complex. But at Creatrix Campus we will unwind it for you. 

Our product Creatrix Campus is end-to-end higher education software that digitizes and automates the toughest processes and makes your campus future-ready.

We have tools to provide 24/7 virtual learning, platforms to offer personalized learning and to easily connect with faculty and other students, tools to develop curriculum the way you prefer, admit, and enroll students, conduct assessments online, etc. 

There’s an Outcome-based education module for your Accreditation needs,   Competency-based education module for developing effective skill-based learning.

We have built some hybrid products that improve the experience, reduce the cost of operations, and automate processes within Higher Education.

Your scheduling efforts, Virtual Classroom enablement, Accreditation, strategic planning, everything is taken care of with a set of Project Management Tools, Reporting & Analytics tools.

With Creatrix, you are not alone while planning for your next big shift in the education paradigm. Together let’s plan a preferable future for today’s students.  

Related Blog

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Education 4.0 and Teachers: Challenges, Risks and Benefits

2020, European Scientific Journal, ESJ

The aim of the present study is to investigate and capture teachers' attitudes towards the principles, benefits and risks of Education 4.0, as it is shaped in the context of the 4th Industrial Revolution. The methodology followed is the quantitative one and specifically an improvised questionnaire was structured. It was answered by a sample of 233 primary education teachers of the Region of Western Greece. Data was analyzed using the statistical software SPSS 26.0 for Windows. The results of the research show that teachers believe that students will have more opportunities to learn at different times and in different locations with tools tailored to their individual abilities and will choose the devices, programs and methods by which they will learn. In addition, the use of technology in education will improve learning outcomes, will help save material resources and improve teachers' communication with parents, students and education staff. However, participating teachers believe that the use of technology entails a greater workload for them, leads to the creation of unknown and demanding professions, leads to sharper inequalities and widens the social gap. In addition, there is a very high risk of job losses and is related to the feeling of insecurity and danger. At the same time, it raises moral issues, threatens individuality and the private sphere of life, homogenizes the views of people and polarizes societies. Finally, additional studies, employment, overall service and training in new technologies have a statistically significant effect on teachers' perceptions.

Related Papers

European Scientific Journal, ESJ

Ζoe karanikola

The aim of the present study is to investigate and capture teachers’ attitudes towards the principles, benefits and risks of Education 4.0, as it is shaped in the context of the 4th Industrial Revolution. The methodology followed is the quantitative one and specifically an improvised questionnaire was structured. It was answered by a sample of 233 primary education teachers of the Region of Western Greece. Data was analyzed using the statistical software SPSS 26.0 for Windows. The results of the research show that teachers believe that students will have more opportunities to learn at different times and in different locations with tools tailored to their individual abilities and will choose the devices, programs and methods by which they will learn. In addition, the use of technology in education will improve learning outcomes, will help save material resources and improve teachers' communication with parents, students and education staff. However, participating teachers believe that the use of technology entails a greater workload for them, leads to the creation of unknown and demanding professions, leads to sharper inequalities and widens the social gap. In addition, there is a very high risk of job losses and is related to the feeling of insecurity and danger. At the same time, it raises moral issues, threatens individuality and the private sphere of life, homogenizes the views of people and polarizes societies. Finally, additional studies, employment, overall service and training in new technologies have a statistically significant effect on teachers' perceptions.

The New Educational Review

Education and Linguistics Research

Sweder Souza

The reality of the old school is getting more and more distant from the current students. In this sense, it is essential to think about placing the school within an advanced technology process, placing the school within the world, placing itself within this contemporary context, especially within the current context, within the demands, the agenda of the world, although we know that the difficulties exist and we have many different realities in Brazil. In this sense, we seek to draw an overview of what this Education 4.0 would be, what its precepts, its socio-historical context of production, in order to weave reflections on the topic discussed here and so that it can serve as a theoretical-analytical mapping for understanding and future research on the topic.

Maria Nababan

Anggit Liana

Yeliz Yazıcı Demir

Öz Eğitim pek çok farklı katılımcısı olan çok yüzlü bir sistemdir. Bu sistemin katılımcıları sadece insanlar değil, aynı zamanda politik ve ekonomik elemanlardır. Bilgi kaynağı olarak artık öğretmenler değil akıllı teknolojiye sahip araçlar ve dijital platformlar da tercih edilmektedir. Bu tercihler teknolojik becerileri edinmeyi gerektirmektedir. Öğretmenler ve eğitim politikaları her ne kadar temel yapı taşı niteliğinde olsa da öğrenciler de bu ihtiyaçları öğrenmek ve gidermek üzere bu sistemin önemli elemanlarından biridir. İlgili veri yarı yapılandırılmış görüşmeler yoluyla toplanmıştır. Çalışmada veri toplanırken gönüllüler ve ulaşılabilirlik açısından yakın olanlar tercih edilmiştir bu sebeple çalışma fenomonolojik bir çalışma olmuştur. Teknolojinin eğitime dâhil edilmesi süreci ve eğitim sürecindeki bireylerin bu duruma bakış açısı değerlendirilmiştir. Elde edilen veriler incelendiğinde yeni başlayan öğretmenin öğrenci ihtiyaçları konusunda farkındalık sahibi oldukları sonucuna varılmıştır. Sistem içinde teknoloji kullanımı pek fazla mümkün olmamakla birlikte, ulusal giriş sınavları için öğretmen ve öğrencilerin müfredat içinde belirlenen konuları takip etmesi gerekmektedir. Pek çok öğrenci bu sistemi bir yarış olarak görmektedir ve aileleri de aynı şekilde onları iyi üniversitelerde görmek istemektedir. Sistem kendi içinde her zaman daha iyi şeyler yapılabilir fikriyle eleştirmektedir ve var olan sistemler içindeki yerini almak için sürekli güncelleştirme yapmaktadır. Anahtar Kelimeler: öğretmen ihtiyaçları, dijital çağ, 4.0 web teknolojileri Abstract Education is a multi-faced system with its varied participants. The participants of the system are not only people but also the politic and economic elements. As a source of information teachers are not the only source but now smart technological elements and digital platforms are also the source of information. Teachers and education policies are the fundamentals of the education system however the students can also be considered as the part of these fundamentals. The related data is collected via semi-instructed interviews. The ones which are easy to reach and volunteer are chosen in the process of data collection and that's why the study is designed as phenomenological study design. The data analyzed and it is seen that the novice teachers have the awareness of the needs of the students. It is not much possible to use the technological elements in the system because the students need to follow the course catalogue to be successful ın the national entrance exam. Many students consider the process as a race and families are also want them to be in good universities that is why they don't consider technology as a key matter. The system is considered to be better and the updates are being done continuously in order to keep the rhythm with the developing technologies.

EDUCATION 4.0 IN A SIMPLE WAY (Atena Editora)

Atena Editora

We are in a time when almost everyone talks about the 4th. Industrial Revolution(4RI), also known as Industry 4.0. The 4RI is transforming productive, economic and commercial relations; These changes are even seen in educational environments, forcing a review of teaching methods and the learning process. These needs and changes that education has to cover is what is known as Education 4.0. Education 4.0 is a response to the need for technological evolution that the 4RI means, where humans and technology are aligned to allow new possibilities. In the following writing the characteristics of Education 4.0 are mentioned.

e-Academia Journal

DR. YUNITA AWANG

The Industrial Revolution caused major changes in the economy and advancement in technology. Specifically, IR4.0 stimulates the development of Education 4.0, in which the use of information, internet and technology become part of the teaching and learning process allowing students to learn at any time through digital platforms. Promoting for Education 4.0 involved challenges particularly constant changes in the teaching and learning techniques, and the facilities to cater to the technology demands. This study attempts to assess perceived challenges towards Education 4.0 implementation among the academicians at a comprehensive university and to explore the relationship between gender and perceived challenges among them. Based on purposive sampling, online questionnaires were distributed via google form to a population of 352 academicians in the selected comprehensive university. Data gathered from 127 responses were analysed using SPSS. The findings indicate the majority of the respo...

Proceedings of the 8th UPI-UPSI International Conference 2018 (UPI-UPSI 2018)

Euis Kurniati

Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Education, Science, and Technology (ICEST 2019)

anas arfandi

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

RELATED PAPERS

African Journal of Inter/Multidisciplinary Studies

Orhe Arek-Bawa

Quest Journal of Management and Social Sciences

Benjula Adhikari

International Journal of Information and Education Technology

Hidayati Zulkipli

Proceedings of the International Conference on Educational Psychology and Pedagogy - "Diversity in Education" (ICEPP 2019)

Higher Education Pedagogies

Chie Adachi

Contemporary Educational Researches Journal

CERJ Journal

Primo Villanueva

Paula Peres

International Journal of Education & Literacy Studies [IJELS]

International Journal of Scientific & Technology Research

Via Yustitia

Lectito Journals , Anabela Mesquita

Informatică economică

andreea stroe

Journal of Engineering Education Transformations

Carlos Schettini , Schettini Pinto

Asia-Pacific Journal of Information Technology &amp; Multimedia

Yasmen Meeno

DR. SANJEEV TANDON

Alexandra Zuniga

Jurnal Obsesi : Jurnal Pendidikan Anak Usia Dini

rohita rohita

New Perspectives in Science Education

Dina Tsybulsky , Nitzan Koren

Revista Da FAEEBA - Educação E Contemporaneidade

Ramesh Chander Sharma

Information Technologies and Learning Tools

Martina Porubčinová

The Journal of Contemporary Issues in Business and Government

Raden Roro Vemmi Kesuma Dewi

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

• Entertainment
• Other Sections
• The Philippine Star
• True Confessions
• Cebu Business
• Cebu Sports
• Cebu Lifestyle
• Cebu Entertainment
• Police Metro
• Pang Movies
• Para Manalo
• Para Malibang
• Imong Kapalaran
• Trends + Spotlights
• Politics + Issues
• Celebrities
• Hobbies + Interests

• nav other-sections== HOME
• ENTERTAINMENT
• OTHER SECTIONS

Education and Home

Education 4.0: rebooting phl teacher education.

MANILA, Philippines — Education 4.0 is the new buzzword, and it is disrupting our traditional concept of schooling, teaching and learning. A new generation of learners has invaded our schools replacing the millennials — the Generation Z or the Internet Generation (iGen) learners who are not only tech-savvy, but also technology-dependent, practically born with a smartphone in their hands and regard technology as essential as air and water. They have never seen the world without the internet, and thus cannot imagine living without being connected. They are the true archetype of digital natives. They live and breathe technology. Growing up connected to the cyberworld using different devices enables them to process and absorb tons of information 24/7. They are social media addicts. The hyper-connected environment they grew up in taught them not only the skills, but also more interestingly, the habits to switch tasks effortlessly. Their minds are constantly flowing and moving in different directions. They can thrive in 4D simulated or augmented reality environments.

According to Dr. Darla Rothman, the brains of this internet generation are wired to perceive information visually because the region of their brain for visual ability is more developed due to constant exposure to fast-paced, sensory-laden multimedia environment. Their brain is wired to expect information immediately in bites and chunks, shortening their attention span. Rothman estimates that the average attention span of this generation in online platforms is eight seconds and, in the classroom, is seven to 10 minutes.The iGen learners favor storytelling, explainer videos, interactive games, collaborative projects, experiential learning and other forms of visualization. They are good at video blogging and know that they have the opportunity to be financially independent of their parents by being a social media influencer. They have access to technologies that enable them to be entrepreneurial. They can work and study at the same time. Climate change, ecology-related issues and healthy lifestyles are their preferred causes.

In 2018, the Philippines was ranked 57th of 79 participating countries in the Global Connectivity Index (GCI). We are the fastest-growing digital populations in the world with 63 percent of the population accessing the internet, spending an average of 10 hours a day. Digital 2019 reported that the Filipinos are the top internet users in the world with 47 percent of our online activities spent on social media. Along with this dramatically changed environment is the equally fascinating change in the preferences of today’s learners.

How then do we respond to the challenges of teaching these new kids on the block, the Filipino iGen learners in particular? There emerges now the need to have a national conversation contextualizing Education 4.0 vis-à-vis Industrial Revolution (IR) 4.0 where we see the digitalization of the way economy produces and exchanges goods and services using smart and autonomous systems fueled by data and machine learning.What we have in IR 4.0 is the expanding human-machine partnership giving birth to an innovation society which may render irrelevant the existing design of Philippine Education that was put in place to address the requirements of a mass economy or IR 2.0.

Our attention now shifts to Education 4.0, which puts premium on mobile learning, individualized learning playlist, flexible and customized curriculum and hands-on and practical application of knowledge.

Society will be de-schooled to give way to a diverse learning eco-system driven by learners and their interests and no longer will schools dominate decisions about what and how to learn. Credentials of mastery can be obtained from diverse providers and platforms. Teachers’ role will be challenged by other learning agents. The entry of iGen learners in our schools challenges us to imagine how education of the future would look like.

Are Philippine schools designed to cater to this new type of learners? Do we have the teachers that are fit for iGen learning requirements? Are Philippine teacher education institutions (TEIs) producing the competent teachers the country needs?

We need teachers who will not just be facilitators of learning, but also innovation catalysts. We definitely cannot future-proof our schools overnight. Nor can we immediately make innovators out of our teachers. The culture nor the system is simply not there yet. We must therefore undertake a major rebooting now to upgrade our education ecosystem.

The question now is how do we make teacher education future-proof?

We need to re-define even re-invent teacher education vis-à-vis the future.

As Rothman advised, teachers need to be provided with meaningful, tech-focused, professional development as they transition from a traditional learning model to one that is transformational.

The teacher education curriculum should be innovative enough to include, for example, a) coding and application development to equip our pre-service teachers with the skills needed to develop digital solutions to their teaching-learning problems; b) design thinking for innovation; and c) teaching applications that would work best in handling the “content of the future” using software, hardware, digital, technological and social media.

There is a need to build an education ecosystem that involves not only the schools to take care of the education of our children, but also a strong support from the business sector, the community and the parents. As the saying goes, “It takes a village to educate a child.”

We need to level up the technology infrastructure in the country to reach even the remotest barangay in the country for inclusive education to serve its purpose. Learners from these geographically-challenged areas must also benefit from Education 4.0. No one should be left behind.

We cannot continue doing more of the same things. The time is now to start the process of re-booting our education. We should stop playing catch up.

Ma. Antoinette C. Montealegre, D.A. is the officer-in-charge at the Office of the President of the Philippine Normal University and the concurrent Vice President for Academics.  - Ma. Antoinette C. Montealegre, D.A.

INTERNET GENERATION

Teaching and learning.

A celebration of scooter culture and communication in Manila: The Classic Panarea Sessions 2024

Newly opened KMC Sky Club poised to complement Clark Freeport Zone’s businesses, talent pool

REVIEW: What can the mid-range vivo V30e offer for the price of P17,999?

You could win €195 million from EuroMillions in the Philippines!

Free prostate check-up for Las Piñas, Parañaque, Muntinlupa residents

Beaming with pride: 5 stories of hope from the queer community

SM Malls Online is your new one-stop shop for all the best deals

Indulge in the ultimate chocolate experience with Seattle’s Best Coffee and Ghirardelli

Ogie Alcasid, James Deakin sign as Global Dominion brand ambassadors

New partnership offers P17.5M scholarship grant for tech students

CHED's 'Paglaum kag Pagdaug': Hope and victory for Philippine education

Prime invests in future sustainability leaders with scholarship program

Ajinomoto offers post-graduate scholarship on food technology and nutrition education in Japan

AboitizPower Toledo plant turns over revitalized daycare center to Cebu community

Filipino language, examination center feted with awards

AIM’s 1st undergraduate dual-degree program: Mentoring the Philippines’ future data scientists

QC kids receive free school bags, shoes, vitamins

5 trendy programs that you can now pursue in Mapúa beyond IT, Engineering

Roles of education in driving environmental, social and governance goals

‘You carry our dreams in Paris’

Getting better, Canada slays Brazil in 3 sets

Eala breezes into quarterfinals

Thompson ruled out of Latvia OQT

Ajido, sy ride crest in pai national meet.

International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research

• Announcements
• Editorial Board
• Submit a Paper
• Publication Ethics
• ##PAPER TEMPLATE##
• ##Retraction Policy##

Teacher Education Institutions in the Philippines towards Education 4.0

Education must reflect the world it is training students for. Education 4.0 ensures that teaching-learning experiences will take advantage of the limitless opportunities created by advanced technology. This study determines the readiness of teacher education institutions in the Philippines for Education 4.0 in the areas of faculty, teaching and learning, infrastructure, and research as perceived by the administrators and faculty members of teacher education institutions in the Philippines. This study made use of survey questionnaire indicating the four parameters mentioned, and data were analysed using quantitative method. The findings of this study suggest that administrators and faculty members perceived that they are ready in terms of their skills in selecting and integrating digital resources for teaching and learning as they are also given capacity buildings through seminars and conferences related to technological literacy. However, they are neither skillful in using the learning management system and other online class modality; nor in the utilization of augmented reality, robotics, and digital enablers like 3D printing. This finding may be attributed to the unavailability and inaccessibility of digital infrastructure and virtual laboratories in most teacher education institutions. The respondents also disagreed that the teacher education institutions are ready in terms of research programs and initiatives for Education 4.0. Thus, there is a need for teacher education institutions to rethink infrastructure planning, redesign research initiatives, and strengthen teacher-training capabilities to be Education 4.0 ready.

https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.19.8.8

Berger, T., & Engzell, P. (2020). Intergenerational Mobility in the Fourth Industrial Revolution. https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/zcax3

Bland, C. J., Center, B. A., Finstad, D. A., Risbey, K. R., & Staples, J. G. (2015). A theoretical, practical, predictive model of faculty and department research productivity. Academic Medicine, 80(3), 225â€237. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-200503000-00006

Brown-Martin, G. (2017). Education and the fourth industrial revolution. Retrieved from https://medium.com/regenerative-global/education-and-the-fourth-industrial-revolution-cd6bcd7256a3

Dadios, E. P., Culaba, A. B., Albert, J. R. G., Paqueo, V. B., Orbeta, A. C., Serafica, R. B., Bandala, A. A., & Bairan, J. C. A. C. (2018). Preparing the Philippines for the Fourth Industrial Revolution: A Scoping Study. Philippines Institute for Development Studies. Discussion Paper Series No. 2018-11.

Dunwill, E. (2016). 4 changes that will shape the classroom of the future: Making education fully technological. Retrieved from https://elearningindustry.com/4-changes-will-shape-classroom-of-the-future-making-education-fully-technological

Fisk, P. (2017). Education 4.0 … the future of learning will be dramatically different, in school and throughout life. Retrieved from https://www.thegeniusworks.com/2017/01/future-education-young-everyone-taught-together/

Halili, S. (2019). Technological advancements in education 4.0. The Online Journal of Distance Education and e-Learning, 7(1), 63-69. Retrieved from http://www.tojdel.net/journals/tojdel/articles/v07i01/v07i01-08.pdf

Haron, H. (2018). Education in the era of IR 4.0. Keynote Speech at the 2018 International Conference on Information Management and Technology (ICIMTech 2018), 3 – 5 September 2018. Jakarta, Indonesia. Retrieved from http://umpir.ump.edu.my/id/eprint/22486/1/Education%20in%20the%20Era%20of%204.0.pdf

Hoeschl, M. B., Bueno, T. C., & Hoeschl, H. C. (2017, November). Fourth industrial revolution and the future of engineering: could robots replace human jobs? How ethical recommendations can help engineers rule on artificial intelligence. In 2017 7th World Engineering Education Forum (WEEF) (pp. 21-26). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/weef.2017.8466973

Hussin, A. A. (2018). Education 4.0 made simple: Ideas for teaching. International Journal of Education and Literacy Studies, 6(3), 92-98. https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijels.v.6n.3p.92

Johannessen, J. A. (2018). Automation, innovation and economic crisis: Surviving the fourth industrial revolution. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351039864

Lee, K. (2012). Augmented reality in education and training. TechTrends, 56(2),13-21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-012-0559-3

Meckawey, M. (2019, February). The Maintenance’s Strategy & the 4 th Industrial Revolution. In 2019 International Conference on Fourth Industrial Revolution (ICFIR) (pp. 1-8). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/icfir.2019.8894795

Morrar, R., Arman, H., & Mousa, S. (2017). The fourth industrial revolution (Industry 4.0): A social innovation perspective. Technology Innovation Management Review, 7(11), 12-20.

Mustafa, Z. (2018, May 16). Asean experience for IR 4.0. New Straits Times, pp. 1–6. Retrieved from https://www.nst.com.my/education/2018/05/369959/asean-experience-ir-40

Newman, M. E. (2001). The structure of scientific collaboration networks. Proceedings of the national academy of sciences, 98(2), 404-409.

Overseas Research Report (2015). Current status on science and technology in ASEAN countries. Center for Research and Development Strategy, Japan Science and Technology Agency. Retrieved fromhttps://www.jst.go.jp/crds/pdf/en/CRDS-FY2014-

OR- 02_EN.pdf

Pangandaman, H. K., Ali, N. D., Lambayong, J. H. C., & Ergas, M. L. G. (2019). Philippine higher education vis-Ã -vis education 4.0: A scoping review. International Journal of Advanced Research and Publications, 3(3), 65-69. Retrieved from http://www.ijarp.org/published-research-papers/mar2019/Philippine-Higher-Education-Vis-vis-Education-40-A-Scoping-Review.pdf

Penprase, B. E. (2018). The Fourth Industrial Revolution and Higher Education. In N. Gleason (ed.), Higher Education in the Era of the Fourth Industrial Revolution. Palgrave Macmillan Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-0194-0_9

Puncreobutr, V. (2016). Education 4.0: New challenge of learning. St. Theresa Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 2(2). Retrieved from http://www.stic.ac.th/ojs/index.php/sjhs/article/view/Position%20Paper3

Shahroom, A. A., & Hussin, N. (2018). Industrial revolution 4.0 and education. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 8(9), 314–319.

Sheng, W. U., Choo-Min, L. I. M., & Khiang-Wee, L. I. M. (2000). An integrated Internet-based control laboratory. IFAC Proceedings Volumes, 33(31), 49-53.

Sikdar, M., & Balwaria,)R. (2013). Role of teachers amidst educational reform – passive bystanders or active participants? International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, 3(10). Retrieved from http://www.ijsrp.org/research-paper-1013/ijsrp-p2224.pdf

Schwab, K. (2016). The Fourth Industrial Revolution. World Economic Forum

Leapfrogging to education 4.0: Student at the core (2017). FICCI Higher Education Report. Retrieved from https://www.parthenon.ey.com/po/en/perspectives/leapfrogging-to-education-4-0-student-at-the-core

TESDA (2016). Technological changes is coming: The fourth industrial revolution. Labor market intelligence report.

U.S. Government. (2017). Preparing for the future of artificial intelligence. Ai & Society, 32(2), 285–287. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-016-0685-0

Wallner, T., & Wagner, G. (2016). Academic education 4.0. In the Proceedings of the END International Conference on Education and New Developments, 12-14 June. Ljubljana, Slovenia. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/304115292_ACADEMIC_EDUCATION_40

Welsh, B, (2018, April 18). Education 4.0 — How we will learn in the fourth industrial revolution. Retrieved from https://medium.com/@brianna_91610/education-4-0-how-we-will-learn-in-the-fourth-industrial-revolution-e17206b73016

World Economic Forum Asian Development Bank (ADB). (2017). ASEAN 4.0: what does the Fourth Industrial Revolution mean for regional economic integration? World Economic Forum, Geneva, Switzerland. http://dx.doi.org/10.22617/TCS179126-2

Xing, B., & Marwala, T. (2017). Implications of the fourth industrial age on higher education. Computers and Society, Cornell University. http://arxiv.org/abs/1703.09643

Yoon, D. (2017). What we need to prepare for the fourth industrial revolution. Healthcare informatics research, 23(2), 75-76. https://doi.org/10.4258/hir.2017.23.2.75

• There are currently no refbacks.

e-ISSN: 1694-2116

p-ISSN: 1694-2493

Investigating the Role of Education 4.0 in the Performance of HEIs

• Conference paper
• First Online: 19 June 2024
• Cite this conference paper

• D. Sri Dhivya   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-0277-1629 4 ,
• A. Hariharasudan   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-7938-9383 5 ,
• E. Balamurali   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-4280-2573 6 ,
• Zdzislawa Dacko-Pikiewicz   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-4542-5574 7 &
• Janusz Michałek   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-0773-9954 7  

Part of the book series: Springer Proceedings in Business and Economics ((SPBE))

Included in the following conference series:

• The Global Conference on Entrepreneurship and the Economy in an Era of Uncertainty

Integrating emerging technologies, such as artificial intelligence, big data, and the Internet of Things (IoT) into education is known as Education 4.0, revolutionizing Higher Education Institutions (HEIs). This transformation goes beyond the classroom and impacts the entire system, including student enrolment and retention. By adopting Education 4.0, institutions can improve their curriculum, teaching methods, and overall learning outcomes while increasing operational efficiency. However, this shift presents challenges, such as the need for institutions to reskill their workforce to keep up with the rapidly evolving technological landscape. This study aims to examine the effects of Education 4.0 on HEIs and assess its impact. The study’s methodology examines the impact of Education 4.0 on HEIs through survey-based quantitative research. The study assesses the effectiveness of Education 4.0 in various areas, such as psychological readiness, innovative pedagogical approaches and engagement and motivation, digital literacy, and learning outcomes in teaching and learning. The study is unique in its focus on implementing Education 4.0 in HEIs. The methodology used in this study involved survey research design, and institutions were selected based on a random sampling technique. The data was collected among students, faculty, and administrators of HEIs in the southern region of Tamil Nadu, India, through a questionnaire and analyzed using descriptive statistics. The results indicate that Education 4.0 significantly improves many aspects of HEIs. However, the study’s limitations highlight the need for further research to address gaps and expand on these findings.

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

Access this chapter

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Hariharasudan, A., Kot, S.: A scoping review on Digital English and Education 4.0 for Industry 4.0. Soc. Sci. 7 (11), 227 (2018)

Google Scholar  

Srivani, V., Hariharasudan, A., Pandeeswari, D.: English language learning using education 4.0 in Karimnagar, India. World J. Engl. Lang. 12 (2), 325 (2022)

Srivani, V., Hariharasudan, A., Nawaz, N., Ratajczak, S.: Impact of Education 4.0 among engineering students for learning English language. PLoS One 17 (2), 1–12 (2022)

Dhivya, D. S., Hariharasudan, A., Ragmoun, W., Alfalih, A.A.: ELSA as an Education 4.0 tool for learning business english communication. Sustain. 15 (4), 3809 (2023)

Thavabalan, P., Mohan, S., Hariharasudan, A., Nawaz, N.: English for business communication: An interventional study with employees of Indian printing industry at Sivakasi. Asian ESP J. 17 , 90–107 (2021)

Thavabalan, P., Mohan, S., Hariharasudan, A., Krzywda, J.: English as business lingua franca (Belf) to the managers of Indian printing industries. Pol. J. Manag. Stud 22 (2), 549–560 (2020)

Article   Google Scholar  

Szczepańska-Woszczyna, K., Gatnar, S.: Key competences of research and development project managers in high technology sector. Forum Sci. Oecon. 10 (3), 107–130 (2022)

Hariharasudan, A., Rahiman, H.U., Nawaz, N., Panakaje, N.: Strategic influence of business English in management education. Pol. J. Manag. Stud. 23 (2), 180–195 (2021)

Palese, E., LaMance, R., Tardy, C.M.: Internationally mobile students’ language views in an Inner Circle English writing course. Syst. 112 , 102950 (2023)

Miranda, J.: The core components of education 4.0 in higher education: Three case studies in engineering education. Comput. Electr. Eng. 93 , 245 (2021)

Manivasakan, S., Parija, S.: Education 4.0 in higher education institutions: The need. J. Sci. Dent. 12 (1), 1–2 (2022)

Nawaz, N., Durst, S., Hariharasudan, A., Shamugia, Z.: Knowledge management practices in higher education institutions comparative study. Pol. J. Manag. Stud. 22 (2), 291–308 (2020)

Sun, T., Wang, C.: College students’ writing self-efficacy and writing self-regulated learning strategies in learning English as a foreign language. Syst. 90 (3), 102221 (2020)

Bin Saeed, B., Afsar, B., Hafeez, S., Khan, I., Tahir, M., Afridi, M.A.: Promoting employee’s pro-environmental behavior through green human resource management practices. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 26 (2), 424–438 (2019)

Stuss, M.M., Szczepańska-Woszczyna, K., Makieła, Z.J.: Competences of graduates of higher education business studies in labor market I (results of pilot cross-border research project in Poland and Slovakia). Sustain. 11 (18), 4988 (2019)

Srivani, V., & Hariharasudan, A.: Influence of education 4.0 on english language instruction in Telangana’s engineering institutions. J. Intercult. Commun., 23 (2), 50–57 (2023)

Saha, M.: English teachers’ attitudes towards learners: Effects on the rural pedagogies in Bangladesh. Ampersand 10 , 100107 (2023)

Ziegler, N.: Interdisciplinary research at the intersection of CALL, NLP, and SLA: Methodological implications from an input enhancement project. Lang. Learn. 67 (S1), 209–231 (2017)

Walsh, J.N., Rísquez, A.: Using cluster analysis to explore the engagement with a flipped classroom of native and non-native English-speaking management students. Int. J. Manag. Educ. 18 (2), 100381 (2020)

Goh, P.S.C., Abdul-Wahab, N.: Paradigms to drive higher education 4.0. Int. J. Learn., Teach. Educ. Res. 19 (1), 159–171 (2020)

Putri, A.S., Prasetyo, Z.K., Purwastuti, L.A., Prodjosantoso, A.K., Putranta, H.: Effectiveness of STEAM-based blended learning on students’ critical and creative thinking skills. Int. J. Eval. Res. Educ. 12 (1), 44–52 (2023)

Huizenga, J., Admiraal, W., Dam, G. tem., Voogt, J.: Mobile game-based learning in secondary education: Students’ immersion, game activities, team performance and learning outcomes. Comput. Hum. Behav. 99 , 137–143, Oct. (2019)

Eady, L., Michelle J., Lockyer.: Tools for learning: technology and teaching. In Learning to Teach in the Primary School, p. 71, pp. 71–89 (2013)

Zoghbor, W.S.: Teaching English pronunciation to multi-dialect first language learners: The revival of the Lingua Franca Core (LFC). Syst. 78 , 1–14 (2018)

Villalobos-Zúñiga, G., Cherubini, M.: Apps That Motivate: a Taxonomy of App Features Based on Self-Determination Theory. Int. J. Hum Comput Stud. 140 , 102449 (2020)

Escobar Fandiño, F.G., Muñoz, L.D., Silva Velandia A.J.: Motivation and E-Learning English as a foreign language: A qualitative study. Heliyon 5 (9), (2019)

Rus, D.: Creative methodologies in teaching English for engineering students. Procedia Manuf. 46 , 337–343 (2020)

Escobar Fandiño, F.G., Muñoz, L.D., Silva Velandia, A.J.: Motivation and E-Learning English as a foreign language: A qualitative study. Heliyon 5 (9), (2019)

Plutsky, S.: Faculty perceptions of students’ business communication needs. Bus. Commun. Q. 59 (4), 69–76 (1996)

Dhivya, D. S., Hariharasudan, A., Nawaz, N.: Unleashing potential: Multimedia learning and Education 4.0 in learning Professional English Communication. Cogent Soc. Sci. 9 (2), 2248751 (2023)

Gajek, A., Fabiano, B., Laurent, A., Jensen, N.: Process safety education of future employees 4.0 in Industry 4.0. J. Loss Prev. Process. Ind. 75 , 104691 (2022)

Li, M., Yu, Z.: Teachers’ satisfaction, role, and digital literacy during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Sustain. 14 (3), (2022)

Matsumoto-Royo, K., Ramírez-Montoya, M.S.: Core practices in practice-based teacher education: A systematic literature review of its teaching and assessment process. Stud. Educ. Eval. 70 , 101047 (2021)

Abdulrahaman, M.D.: Multimedia tools in the teaching and learning processes: A systematic review. Heliyon 6 (11), e05312 (2020)

Abdulrahaman, M.D., Faruk, N., Oloyede, A.A., Surajudeen-bakinde, N.T., Olawoyin, L.A.: Heliyon multimedia tools in the teaching and learning processes : A systematic review. Heliyo 6 , e05312 (2020)

Wang, K., Li, B., Tian, T., Zakuan, N., Rani, P.: Evaluate the drivers for digital transformation in higher education institutions in the era of industry 4.0 based on decision-making method. J. Innov. Knowl. 8 (3), 100364 (2023)

Fleaca, E., Stanciu, R.D.: Digital-age learning and business engineering education-a pilot study on students’ E-skills. Procedia Manuf. 32 , 1051–1057 (2019)

Şimon, S., Kilyeni, A., Suciu, L.: Strategies for improving the english pronunciation of the 1st Year ‘Translation-interpreting’ students. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 191 , 2157–2160 (2015)

Eshet-Alkalai, Y.: Digital literacy: A conceptual framework for survival skills in the digital era. J. Educ. Multimed. Hypermedia 13 , 93–106 (2004)

Ibrahim, N.: The importance of implementing collaborative learning in the english as a second language (ESL) classroom in Malaysia. Procedia Econ. Financ. 31 (15), 346–353 (2015)

Liu, P.L.: Mobile English vocabulary learning based on concept-mapping strategy. Lang. Learn. Technol. 20 (3), 128–141 (2016)

Richards, J.C.: Curriculum approaches in language teaching: Forward, central, and backward design. RELC J. 44 (1), 5–33 (2013)

Nachoua, H.: Computer-assisted language learning for improving students’ listening skill. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 69 , 1150–1159 (2012)

Wang, X., Cheng, Z.: Cross-Sectional Studies: Strengths, weaknesses, and recommendations. Chest 158 (1), S65–S71 (2020)

Ye, J., Zhang, X., Zhou, L., Wang, D., Tian, F.: Psychological mechanism linking green human resource management to green behavior. Int. J. Manpow. 43 (3), 844–861 (2022)

Habók, A., Magyar, A., Molnár, G.: Investigating the relationship among english language learning strategies, language achievement, and attitude. Front. Psychol. 13 , 867714 (2022)

Mayer, R.E.: Applying the science of learning: Evidence-based principles for the design of multimedia instruction. Am. Psychol. 63 (8), 760–769 (2008)

Haderer, B., Ciolacu, M.: Education 4.0: artificial intelligence assisted task-and time planning system. Procedia Comput. Sci. 200 , 1328–1337 (2022)

Farias-Gaytan, S., Aguaded, I., Ramirez-Montoya, M.S.: Transformation and digital literacy: Systematic literature mapping. Educ. Inf. Technol. 27 (2), 1417–1437 (2022)

Mohamad Alakrash, H., Abdul Razak, N.: Towards the education 4.0, readiness level of EFL students in utilising technology-enhanced classroom. Int. J. Innov., Creat. Chang. 13 (10), 161–182 (2020)

Van, L.K., Dang, T.A., Pham, D.B.T., Vo, T.T.N., Pham, V.P.H.: The effectiveness of using technology in learning english. AsiaCALL Online J. 12 (2), 24–40 (2021)

Khan, A.A., Laghari, A.A., Shaikh, Z.A., Dacko-Pikiewicz, Z., Kot, S.: Internet of Things (IoT) security with blockchain technology: A state-of-the-art review. IEEE Access. 10 , 122679–122695 (2022)

Anaelka, A.H.: Education 4.0 made simple: Ideas For teaching. Int. J. Educ. Lit. Stud. 6 (3), 92 (2018)

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of English, Kalasalingam Academy of Research and Education, Krishnankoil, India

D. Sri Dhivya

Kalasalingam Academy of Research and Education, Krishnankoil, India

A. Hariharasudan

Department of Science and Humanities, Sri Krishna College of Engineering and Technology, Coimbatore, India

E. Balamurali

WSB University, Dabrowa Górnicza, Poland

Zdzislawa Dacko-Pikiewicz & Janusz Michałek

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to A. Hariharasudan .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Faculty of Management, Częstochowa University of Technology, Czestochowa, Poland

Sebastian Kot

KMITL Business School, King Mongkut's Institute of Technology Ladkrabang, Bangkok, Thailand

Bilal Khalid

Faculty of Business and Management, Yorkville University, Fredericton, NB, Canada

Adnan ul Haque

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2024 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this paper

Cite this paper.

Dhivya, D.S., Hariharasudan, A., Balamurali, E., Dacko-Pikiewicz, Z., Michałek, J. (2024). Investigating the Role of Education 4.0 in the Performance of HEIs. In: Kot, S., Khalid, B., Haque, A.u. (eds) Corporate Practices: Policies, Methodologies, and Insights in Organizational Management. EEEU 2023. Springer Proceedings in Business and Economics. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-97-0996-0_11

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-97-0996-0_11

Published : 19 June 2024

Publisher Name : Springer, Singapore

Print ISBN : 978-981-97-0995-3

Online ISBN : 978-981-97-0996-0

eBook Packages : Business and Management Business and Management (R0)

Share this paper

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

An account of Jesus as a boy is decoded from an ancient papyrus scrap

The 1,600-year-old manuscript had sat unnoticed for decades at a German university. Experts say it may be the oldest written document detailing Jesus’ childhood.

Key takeaways

Summary is AI-generated, newsroom-reviewed.

• The 1,600-year-old manuscript had sat unnoticed for decades at a German university.
• Experts say it may be the oldest written document detailing Jesus’ childhood.
• The manuscript was previously deemed insignificant because of the clumsy writing.

Did our AI help? Share your thoughts.

For decades, a clumsily written document sat unnoticed at a university library in Germany, believed to be nothing more than a very old, everyday note, such as a private letter or a shopping list. Now, more than a millennium and a half after it was written, researchers believe the papyrus fragment is no ordinary memo, but the oldest surviving written copy of a gospel detailing Jesus’ childhood.

Lajos Berkes from Humboldt University of Berlin and Gabriel Nocchi Macedo from the University of Liège in Belgium, two papyrologists, date it to the 4th or 5th century, according to a news release .

They deciphered the fragment and identified it as a passage from the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, a work that is apocryphal — or outside the accepted canon of scripture — and is believed to have been originally written in the 2nd century A.D. That makes it the oldest extant copy of that particular gospel.

The fragment is “of extraordinary interest for research,” Berkes said in the statement, noting it offers “new insights into the transmission of the text.” Nocchi Macedo said it confirms assessments that the Infancy Gospel of Thomas was originally written in Greek.

After researchers noticed the word “Jesus” in the document, they decoded it “letter by letter and quickly realized that it could not be an everyday document,” Berkes said. Key terms including “crowing” and “branch” allowed them to compare it to other early Christian texts and identify it as an early copy of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas. The manuscript’s clumsy writing was long seen as a sign that it was an insignificant document, but now researchers believe it was created as an exercise at a school or monastery.

Biblical apocrypha , from the Greek apokryphos, or “hidden,” are stories that did not make it into the Bible but were read widely in antiquity and the Middle Ages, the statement notes. While Christian sects disagree over the status and extent of the apocrypha, they have long been studied, providing context to understanding the backdrop to the New Testament, according to the Center for Christian Apologetics, Scholarship and Education in Australia.

Michael Zellmann-Rohrer, a papyrologist at Macquarie University in Sydney who studies ancient religion and magic, called the fragment’s decoding an “exciting find.”

GET CAUGHT UP Stories to keep you informed

Louisiana requires Ten Commandments to be displayed in public classrooms

Stonehenge spray-painted orange by protesters calling for climate action

Family of black belts stops attempted sex assault next door, police say

TikTok makes major play for ‘Eras’ of Taylor Swift fans

Water or electrolyte drinks: Which is better when it’s hot out?

“Here we have one more witness to the diversity of Christian scripture before the development of a fixed canon,” he said in an email, noting it also offers “a detailed look at the shape in which one such noncanonical text was copied and read in Late Antiquity.”

Certainty is “difficult when faced with fragmentary texts like papyri,” he added, but called the proposed identification “highly probable.”

He notes that while the birth of Jesus is already recounted in the canonical gospels, this is the “earliest manuscript record that attests the childhood of Jesus in detail.”

The words on the fragment are believed to be part of a story in which a 5-year-old Jesus is playing near a stream and molding clay that he finds in the mud into sparrows. When Joseph scolds him and asks him why he is doing this on the Sabbath, or the day of rest, Jesus claps his hands and the figures come to life.

Zellmann-Rohrer said the episode’s playfulness, the claim of Jesus creating of life from an inanimate substance, and “the texture of the relationship between Jesus and Joseph” depicted adds “significantly to the picture of the childhood of Jesus that we get from the canonical gospels.”

• Personal Finance
• Today's Paper
• T20 World Cup
• Partner Content
• Entertainment
• Social Viral
• Pro Kabaddi League

NEET 2024: Prime accused admits to arranging exam papers for 4 candidates

Yadvendu claimed that he demanded rs 40 lakh from each aspirant, including his nephew anurag yadav, for providing the leaked question paper on may 4, a day before the exam.

Photo: Shutterstock

Listen to This Article

Even 0.001% negligence must be dealt with: sc to nta on neet irregularities, neet-ug 2024-25: record 24 lakh applications received from candidates, neet ug 2024 row: sc verdict proves issues in exam, says alakh pandey, 'if you can stop war, why not neet paper leaks' rahul gandhi asks pm modi, neet-ug 2024 row deepens as 4 arrested confess to question paper leak, govt to form high-level committee to improve functioning of nta: pradhan, 'ugc-net paper leaked on dark net': education minister on exam row, ugc-net cancelled to protect students' interests: education ministry, no complaints against ugc-net; cancelled to protect students: officials, neet ug 2024: fresh admit cards for 1563 candidates released by nta.

(Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)

Don't miss the most important news and views of the day. Get them on our Telegram channel

First Published: Jun 20 2024 | 10:02 PM IST

Explore News

• Suzlon Energy Share Price Adani Enterprises Share Price Adani Power Share Price IRFC Share Price Tata Motors Share Price Tata Steel Share Price Yes Bank Share Price Infosys Share Price SBI Share Price Tata Power Share Price
• Latest News Company News Market News India News Politics News Cricket News Personal Finance Technology News World News Industry News Education News Opinion Shows Economy News Lifestyle News Health News
• Today's Paper About Us T&C Privacy Policy Cookie Policy Disclaimer Investor Communication GST registration number List Compliance Contact Us Advertise with Us Sitemap Subscribe Careers BS Apps
• ICC T20 World Cup 2024 Budget 2024 Lok Sabha Election 2024 Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)

Undergraduate Admission

Application requirements & enhancements.

Our admission counselors review each application carefully, taking into consideration your academic background, life experiences and interests. We don’t have a minimum test score or GPA range to gauge your potential for admission, but there are some things that can make you a stronger candidate.

Required for admission consideration

We look for students who have been successful in a variety of challenging courses, especially those that are above and beyond what’s required for graduation. And we understand every school is different, so we evaluate your transcript specifically against your high school's curriculum.

Prior to high school graduation, we require you to complete a minimum of:

• English: 4 years
• Math: 3 years
• Science: 3 years (2 must be laboratory science)
• Social studies: 3 years
• Foreign language: 2 years

If you're interested in engineering or the sciences, we recommend an additional year of math and laboratory science. Leaning more toward the liberal arts? We’d suggest another year of social studies and foreign language.

Application essay

All first-year students must complete an essay via the Common App or Coalition with Scoir. What you share in your essay is completely up to you—it should be about conveying who you are to the admission staff. No matter the topic, personalize it. Add a part of you into the piece, and make it genuine.

Arts Supplement Required for music majors and those who are pursing a Arts Achievement Scholarship in either music or art studio

Applicants who are required to submit an Arts Supplement will see this required checklist item on their applicant status portal. Students must upload their portfolio materials using the portfolio updater prior to completing the Arts Supplement. You can access the portfolio uploader by logging into your applicant portal using your CWRU Network ID and clicking Edit Portfolio.

The Arts Supplement is optional for all other applicants. (More on that below.)

Opportunities to enhance your application

We understand there may be more you want to share with us than can fit neatly on the Common App or Coalition with Scoir. Though not required as part of their application, some students choose to share additional information that may possibly strengthen their application and help us get to know them better. We welcome you to share such information with us.

Optional ways to enhance your application include the following:

Test-optional policy

Case Western Reserve University is test-optional.  Read about our test-optional policy .

We “superscore” our students’ test results, which means we take your best scores on each section of the SAT and ACT. If you took a test more than once, you will be evaluated on the highest score you received in each individual section of the exam.

Here’s a look at admitted student statistics for the Class of 2025:

Middle 50% 

• SAT Total: 1420-1510
• ACT Composite: 32-35
• Unweighted GPA: 3.6–4.0
• Test optional: 42%

Ordinarily, scores for standardized tests taken in November of your senior year arrive in time for Early Action or Early Decision I deadlines, and scores for tests taken in January arrive in time for Early Decision II or Regular Decision consideration.

To ensure your application can be fully reviewed in time for your chosen decision plan, you should take tests by the following dates:

• Nov. 30 : Early Action, Early Decision I and Pre-Professional Scholars Program applicants
• Dec. 31 : Early Decision II and Regular Decision applicants

Share your talents

Arts Supplements are required for music and music education majors and available to all applicants. If you intend to submit an arts supplement, be sure to indicate this on your application.

The arts supplement is due 15 days after the application deadline and can be completed via your applicant portal .  For detailed information:

Scholarship Audition and Portfolio Requirements

• Prepare two contrasting monologues, one Shakespeare and one contemporary, not to exceed a total time of four minutes. You may also prepare 16 bars of any song, but this is not required. If possible, please present a headshot and resume at the audition.

A portfolio presentation is needed for the directing concentration. Your portfolio should consist of the following:

• A one-page resume documenting your theater experience (directing, acting, playwriting, design, stage management, etc.).
• A one- to two- page director’s concept for a published play or musical that you would be interested in directing, detailing your vision for the show (characters, moods and tones, visual aspects) in addition to what you would want the audience to take away from the production in terms of its central themes and ideas.
• Production photos from previous projects you have directed (if applicable, not required).
• You should be prepared to speak about your interest and passion for directing as well as your previous directing and/or theater experience.

Dramatic Writing/Playwriting

• Submit a 20-page sample of your work in either playwriting or screenwriting (or both) at least one week before the interview date. This can include either an excerpt from a full-length work or a combination of shorter pieces, such as 10-minute plays or short-film scripts. While dramatic writing is preferred, you may also submit other examples of your creative writing, such as short stories, poetry, essays, etc.

Stage Management

• Bring your stage management binders, copies of scripts you have worked on (with cues written in), paperwork related to the show, and any other evidence of skills related to stage management such as organization, managing/coordinating large groups of people, multitasking and communication.
• A one-page resume of experience in theater is required. You may also include experience in a related field, such as art, architecture, graphics or photography. Additionally, a statement of intent—even if that statement is exploratory—should be provided. Other materials may include a portfolio demonstrating skills in theater (renderings, sketches, paperwork, scale drawings, production photos, etc.) and related areas (artwork, photography, drawing, drafting, computer graphics, etc.). The portfolio may be in scrapbook format. Art projects or model-making could substitute or be included with the other requirements. The material should be organized into some kind of cohesive presentation, with identifying labels for references. The interviewer will retain a copy of your resume but will not keep your portfolio. Portfolio is for presentation purposes only.
• Submit a video and complete an online questionnaire for pre-screening by dance department faculty. The video submission should be 90 seconds to three minutes in length, and you should be clearly visible. Do not submit ensemble footage. Video may be from technique class or performance.
• Submit a portfolio PowerPoint consisting of 24 pieces of your work. Each image credit line should include the name of the piece, the dimensions, the material, media and the date completed. (For example: Self-Portrait, 18” x 24”, media soft pastel on paper, fall 2021.) If you are showing three-dimensional work, i.e. sculpture or pottery, you may want to show two different views, front and side, etc. You may also want to choose to photograph a specific detail.
• Autobiography : A short (250-word) essay, citing your course of study in the visual arts. Include any special out-of-school activities, i.e., art camp, working as a teaching assistant doing creative activities, or private art lessons. Describe both your junior high and high school art experiences, courses that you took, and subjects that you studied.
• Program of study : A separate, short (250-word) essay of what you hope to gain participating in our program in Art History and Art. You may want to consult the Art History and Art website for courses that are available for you to take.

Tell us more about yourself

Additional materials can be shared through a form on your applicant portal. You can use this opportunity to share videos, web links, PDFs, documents, photos and more.

Some students use this as an opportunity to add additional context to their application with materials like:

• Additional letters of recommendation
• Research abstracts
• ACT writing tests
• Schoolhouse.world tutor transcripts
• Predicted IB results
• Though not all may be eligible for college credit at CWRU, these test scores can still enhance your application. You can send scores directly to us or self-report them via your portal.

Anything you have that can help us know you better and understand the contributions you can make to our campus are welcome and appreciated.