A new education agenda based on The International Science and Evidence Based Education Assessment

Based on the definitions described in Fig. 3, the assessment arrived at three prominent findings, each of which will be discussed in a separate section.

1.

An integrative learner-centric approach to teaching and learning
2.

Potentiality (in place of meritocracy) in education systems
3.

The evolving role of technology in education

**Fig. 3: Working definition of human flourishing, learning, evaluation and education.**

The following section delves into the concept of an “integrative learner-centric approach.” It underlines the importance of adopting a holistic perspective over one based on compartmentalization. This section stresses the significance of interconnecting, merging, and viewing education as an integrated dynamic system, a key principle in the assessment.

The subsequent section recommends transitioning from a reliance on meritocracy to focusing on potentialities for advancing educational equality. This section emphasizes the significance of change, trajectories, transformation, and improvements. It underscores another foundational principle: education should concentrate on dynamic processes with open-ended outcomes rather than embrace a static worldview. The last section of the results presents the examination of how teachers can utilize technology, emphasizing the complexities, and the crucial role of context. This entails exploring the reciprocal relationships of education with the environment, characterized by mutual influences between these elements. The section underscores the need for education not only to adapt but also to influence and shape its surroundings proactively.

Table of Contents

An integrative learner-centric approach

The ISEE Assessment’s findings highlight the need to foster 21st-century skills for human flourishing. This extends beyond traditional academic skills of literacy and numeracy to explicitly include cognitive and social-emotional competencies²² ( The evidence to support such an approach is transdisciplinary and broadens the understanding of what constitutes scientific approaches in education. Such an integrative approach to learning and teaching promotes skills and behaviours that cultivate individual and collective flourishing and foster a peaceful and sustainable mindset towards oneself, others, and the environment.

Learning occurs through social interactions, reorganisation of existing knowledge namely self-reflection or meta-cognitive skills as well as through experiential learning. Thus curricula and pedagogies should build and nurture social-emotional, metacognitive, and cognitive domains concurrently. Moreover, these do not develop or operate in isolation but dynamically interact with the environment to influence decision-making and behaviour^23,24,25,26. In light of these findings, ISEEA proposes an integrative learner-centric approach that should be integrated to form the CASE^20,25 (cognitive, academic, social, and emotional) approach across all levels of education—learning, teaching, and assessment.

While building social and emotional competencies is becoming more prevalent, it remains peripheral²⁷ in its approach and acceptance and competencies such as teamwork, commitment, empathy and socialisation function in education are not emphasized. As outlined above, such lack of emphasis is in direct contrast with the scientific evidence demonstrating no clear demarcation of cognitive, social, and emotional processing in the human brain and how these domains influence the foundational skills of literacy and numeracy².

Operationalizing the learner-centric approach requires an overhaul of curricula, shifting the emphasis away from learner assessments, and teacher monitoring towards localized curricula that tackle the existential questions students encounter in their daily lives^28,29. Throughout the ISEE Assessment², there are recommendations on how to actualize a learner-centric education system. These include:

individualized learning where learning experiences are tailored to each student’s needs, interests, and abilities; the assessment recognizes that personalized learning is still in its early stages and achieving it as a goal necessitates the use of inventive and imaginative approaches for implementation.
continuous and immediate feedback and assessment, such as formative and dynamic assessment for learning that uses self- and peer-assessments to facilitate learning;
learning environments that foster critical thinking, problem-solving, and collaboration where diverse students can work together and learn from each other;
teachers moving from knowledge providers to active participants to guide and support students’ learning journey and agency.

In summary, an integrative learner-centric or CASE approach strengthens the interconnectedness of cognition, academic and the social-emotional domains, which is essential for learning that contributes towards human flourishing^20,25. The learner-centric approach is relevant to education for human flourishing as it empowers students to become independent lifelong learners who can adapt to new challenges and continue learning beyond formal educational settings. It acknowledges that students are active participants in their education and that their interests and motivations are critical drivers of learning.

Beyond meritocracy

The ISSEA finds that the appeal to meritocracy as a great equalizer might be a barrier to education for human flourishing. Meritocracy involves allocating educational resources and opportunities based on merit, determined through performance assessments such as national standardized tests⁷. It ensures that the highest-performing students should receive access to higher education based on their achievements, irrespective of their social, cultural, ethnic, or economic background.

A detailed analysis reveals a significant fallacy in implementing meritocracy in education. Students from minority groups, such as low-income families or ethnic and religious minorities, often face significant disadvantages³⁰, making allocating resources based on merit challenging for multiple reasons. One example is the failure to question the neutrality of assessments that may favour certain social groups.

For instance, learners from different social groups have unequal access to material, social, and cultural resources. At school, learners from the dominant group are more familiar with curricula, learning strategies, language and interaction patterns, and assessments that set them up for success. At the group level, success is likely driven by these early advantages. Thus, the argument that meritocracy, as an ideal, does not exhibit structural bias is rejected by many scholars^31,32 (Fig. 4 as an example from the United States³³).

Instead, it can be argued that meritocracy as the great social equalizer has had the opposite effect. It has created a “new form of educational, social, and economic exclusion in the guise of credentialism and exacerbating inequitable flourishing outcomes” or what is known as “hereditary meritocracy”² (p. 29). The failure of the merit-based model highlights the need to shift the focus from the “individual-deficit” model to a model that highlights the structural inequalities that meritocracy propagates.

Furthermore, educational policies have exacerbated inequality. Interventions often prioritize individual skills and neglect systemic barriers. Learners from diverse backgrounds need similar skills, but these manifest differently.

Advances in the science of learning have revealed that human learning and behaviour are functions of biology, opportunity, and environment³⁴. Consequently, human beings show variation in learning potential¹ and also exhibit individual differences in learning^7,34. Based on this evidence, the ISEE assessment proposes potentiality rather than meritocracy as a measure of assessment for human flourishing. Potentiality is conceptualised as a personalised path that is dynamic and evolves with learning, varies across individuals and is shaped by educational environments. Some key principles that support such an approach are (a) While meritocracy traditionally focuses on academic achievement, a potentialities-based approach considers a broader range of factors that contribute to human flourishing; (b) The potentialities-based approach is dynamic and can be personalised. Thus, rather than a static, one-size-fits-all assessment system of meritocracy, which assumes equal opportunity, identical biology and similar environments, potentiality views education as a dynamic process that embraces growth.

The assessment approach of potentiality does not measure the absolute potential of each individual. Such a measurement is neither achievable nor suggested by the assessment Instead, it proposes to operationalise the concept of potentiality as a measure of an individual’s learning rate, which is assessed through dynamic, formative assessments that reflect personal learning trajectories. This model focuses on individual progress over time rather than comparison with others. It shifts the emphasis from competing for resources based on static criteria to nurturing each learner’s development potential.

Thus, transitioning from a meritocracy-based system to one focused on potentiality represents a shift from a static one to one that is dynamic, continuous and focuses on individual growth trajectories where growth is measured as a change from a former state to a new state, for an individual and not across individuals. Such an approach recognises that education requires frameworks that capture its evolving nature. It also calls for recognition that education is complex and needs to be adaptive so that it can continuously respond to the diverse and shifting needs of learners over time.

Teachers and technology

The ISEE Assessment highlights technology’s dual role in education based on design, context, and implementation. Evidence shows technology’s potential in facilitating human flourishing^26,35,36. However, when technology is designed and implemented without caution, it can impede desired learning outcomes^37,38.

Although access to technology in schools (especially access to laptops and reliable internet) remains a challenge²⁸, it is evident that technology is pervasive in education today. In fact, it is a significant mediating factor in what, how, where, and when students learn²⁶. Access to technology has increased significantly in the past years, especially after the COVID pandemic. Over 94% of children own or have access to touchscreen tablet devices in the UK and USA, and children in low- and middle-income countries in Majority World contexts, such as South Africa, are more likely to have access to a tablet device, compared to a laptop or television³.

The role of technology in education has never been more significant than during and post the COVID-19 pandemic. Humans develop technology; hence, technology’s limitations, usability, flaws, and fallacies are linked to human actions. Digital pedagogy through EdTech products and processes can meet diverse student needs. However, choosing suitable technology hinges on contextual factors, like economic, political, cultural, and social conditions. These factors shape EdTech’s policies, implementation, and potential to reduce or exacerbate educational inequalities.

The success of EdTech tools in special needs education suggests their effectiveness in implementing personalized education^{39,40,41,42,43}. Research in the learning sciences has shown that every learner learns differently, and significant individual differences in structural and functional brain networks support learning in various domains³⁴. EdTech allows students to learn independently using techniques that work best for them.

However, the effectiveness of educational technology hinges on understanding and nurturing the reciprocal relationships between technology and the educational setting. This interconnectedness is vital, as it affects everything from curriculum development to teaching methodologies and student engagement. Technological advancements have given rise to hybrid learning spaces and the metaverse, blurring the boundaries between physical and virtual environments^44,45. As the world progresses towards artificial intelligence (AI) and mixed reality, educators and learners must develop the necessary competencies to navigate these hybrid learning spaces effectively. However, these spaces also present significant opportunities for innovative curriculum development, teaching methodologies, and assessment practices. They facilitate active and collaborative learning, cognitive apprenticeship, guided exploration, participation in valued knowledge practices, and cultivation of learner autonomy^46,47,48. Furthermore, when augmented and virtual reality are integrated with physical spaces, they can create transformative and interconnected learning experiences grounded in real-world contexts^49,50.

On the other hand, a lack of rigorous and ethical EdTech implementation can lead to algorithm bias, a greater digital divide, misinformation, privacy concerns, and increased teacher apprehension and stress⁵¹. Education is inherently social, and teacher-student interaction is vital for success. Implementing technology without adequate teacher training and support can negatively affect teacher well-being. Extensive research shows that teacher mental health impacts student outcomes and classroom environments^{52,53,54,55,56}. The ISEE Assessment recommends prioritizing teacher well-being, enhancing their social-emotional skills and information literacy, and investing in training to promote collective learning as technology’s role in education expands.

Thus, if technology is to help education solve wicked problems, ethical care and critical thinking should supplement the growing creativity, excitement, and innovations in the field. This approach underscores the necessity of viewing educational technology not just as tools within a classroom but as integral components of a broader educational ecosystem that is dynamic, interconnected and open to external influence.

The ISEE Assessment advocates transforming the current education model based on economic growth (Fig. 5(a)), into one centred on human flourishing (Fig. 5(b)) that designs learning, content and assessments through an integrative CASE approach, namely building Cognitive, Academic, Social Emotional skills, repurposing assessments to evaluate potentiality, and envisioning teachers as technology-enabled facilitators who enable every learner to achieve their full potential. The report emphasizes that the brain’s malleability via neuroplasticity⁵⁷ presents a powerful tool for nurturing well-being and peaceful mindsets, fostering these qualities through training and practice, as evidenced by research^{54,58,59,60,61}.

**Fig. 5: A transformative model of education that shifts its purpose from economic growth to human flourishing.**

link