Education for Collective Intelligence
Saved in:
| Title: | Education for Collective Intelligence |
|---|---|
| Language: | English |
| Authors: | Michael J. Hogan, Adam Barton, Alison Twiner, Cynthia James, Farah Ahm, Imogen Casebourne, Ian Ste, Pamela Hamilton, Shengpeng Shi, Yi Zhao, Owen M. Harney (ORCID |
| Source: | Irish Educational Studies. 2025 44(1):137-166. |
| Availability: | Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals |
| Peer Reviewed: | Y |
| Page Count: | 30 |
| Publication Date: | 2025 |
| Document Type: | Journal Articles Reports - Evaluative |
| Descriptors: | Intelligence, Educational Technology, Problem Solving, Group Behavior, Active Learning, Student Projects, Cooperation, Cooperative Learning, Instructional Design, Systems Approach |
| DOI: | 10.1080/03323315.2023.2250309 |
| ISSN: | 0332-3315 1747-4965 |
| Abstract: | Collective Intelligence (CI) is important for groups that seek to address shared problems. CI in human groups can be mediated by educational technologies. The current paper presents a framework to support design thinking in relation to CI educational technologies. Our framework is grounded in an organismic-contextualist developmental perspective that orients enquiry to the design of increasingly complex and integrated CI systems that support coordinated group problem solving behaviour. We focus on pedagogies and infrastructure and we argue that project-based learning provides a sound basis for CI education, allowing for different forms of CI behaviour to be integrated, including swarm behaviour, stigmergy, and collaborative behaviour. We highlight CI technologies already being used in educational environments while also pointing to opportunities and needs for further creative designs to support the development of CI capabilities across the lifespan. We argue that CI education grounded in dialogue and the application of CI methods across a range of project-based learning challenges can provide a common bridge for diverse transitions into public and private sector jobs and a shared learning experience that supports cooperative public-private partnerships, which can further reinforce advanced human capabilities in system design. |
| Abstractor: | As Provided |
| Entry Date: | 2025 |
| Accession Number: | EJ1468148 |
| Database: | ERIC |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| FullText | Links: – Type: pdflink Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwGcdruSMXQONP4h6NwegHQmAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDAi6kxNrC3k0H9CP5gIBEICBmw7Par8ii7LWQER5isOd3pLuYqeZYKtqRjDIg_eIBbUPDPDCPQAfh5PB6wj9HCjMHrjbBn_J_xj22V_G1ypokiHvY_lyIugcBbpGQRy9Mx1T5PtG6n4LXFVOjSsYndlNDZ_sffbTpDFUK5MlOoJQ1rCOXZUkHUFPcgEudwmPNz_P_pT5KPpQNVBRPxAUptzBBt9ImYde7yYO0yUl Text: Availability: 1 Value: <anid>AN0183940753;u1001mar.25;2025Mar25.03:07;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0183940753-1">Education for collective intelligence </title> <p>Collective Intelligence (CI) is important for groups that seek to address shared problems. CI in human groups can be mediated by educational technologies. The current paper presents a framework to support design thinking in relation to CI educational technologies. Our framework is grounded in an organismic-contextualist developmental perspective that orients enquiry to the design of increasingly complex and integrated CI systems that support coordinated group problem solving behaviour. We focus on pedagogies and infrastructure and we argue that project-based learning provides a sound basis for CI education, allowing for different forms of CI behaviour to be integrated, including swarm behaviour, stigmergy, and collaborative behaviour. We highlight CI technologies already being used in educational environments while also pointing to opportunities and needs for further creative designs to support the development of CI capabilities across the lifespan. We argue that CI education grounded in dialogue and the application of CI methods across a range of project-based learning challenges can provide a common bridge for diverse transitions into public and private sector jobs and a shared learning experience that supports cooperative public-private partnerships, which can further reinforce advanced human capabilities in system design.</p> <p>Keywords: Collective intelligence; education; collaboration; design</p> <hd id="AN0183940753-2">Introduction</hd> <p>Humans operate individually and collectively as living systems that seek to survive, adapt, and flourish as part of larger world systems. Global and local environments of adaptation change continuously and the dynamics of adaptation can be analysed across different timescales (Hogan and Harney [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref1">52</reflink>]; De Duve [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref2">27</reflink>]; Pettersson [<reflink idref="bib93" id="ref3">93</reflink>]). At a global level, research reveals specific ways in which environmental variation (e.g. climate variation) has shaped human biological evolution (Lupien et al. [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref4">68</reflink>]), and how changes in the environment brought about by human activity (e.g. harvesting, predation, landscape burning, settlement construction, and translocation of other species) have shaped the evolutionary biology of diverse non-human species (Sullivan, Bird, and Perry [<reflink idref="bib112" id="ref5">112</reflink>]). Importantly, the future of world systems is uncertain and lifespan collective intelligence (CI) education of humans is needed to support adaptation in the context of current system dynamics and future uncertainties. CI refers to the combined capacity of a group to solve shared problems. While CI is observed in many species, CI in human groups can be mediated in powerful ways by educational technologies. In the current paper, we position CI education as a key pillar for the emerging discipline of CI (Mulgan [<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref6">80</reflink>]) and we point to the urgent need for infrastructures supporting education for CI.</p> <p>Following Laurillard and Sharples (Laurillard [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref7">62</reflink>]; Sharples [<reflink idref="bib103" id="ref8">103</reflink>]), we argue that education is fundamentally a 'design science' and this is reflected in the history of educational system designs, which have evolved in response to specific environmental challenges. A primary goal of the current paper is to present a framework supporting the design of CI educational technologies. We propose a broad definition of educational technologies incorporating pedagogies and infrastructure and we argue that project-based learning provides a sound basis for CI education, given its focus on groupwork activities and established benefits supporting individual and group learning outcomes (Chen and Yang [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref9">21</reflink>]). Project-based learning allows different forms of CI behaviour to be integrated, including <emph>swarm behaviour</emph> (i.e. direct forms of coordinated aggregate behaviour), <emph>stigmergy</emph> (i.e. indirect coordination, through the environment, between agents or actions), and c<emph>ollaborative behaviour</emph>. We note how collaborative behaviour can expand the repertoire of group coordination dynamics through the operation of diverse skills combined with diverse technologies. We highlight CI technologies already being used in educational environments while also pointing to key opportunities and needs for further creative design and synthesis.</p> <hd id="AN0183940753-3">Evolution and complexity: the design context</hd> <p>Historically, evolutionary dynamics have been characterised as accelerating toward greater complexity (Pettersson [<reflink idref="bib93" id="ref10">93</reflink>]). Analysing nine integrative levels of natural entities – three in the physical range (i.e. fundamental particles, atoms, molecules), three in the biological range (i.e. intermediate entities, ordinary cells, and multicellular organisms), and three in the social range (i.e. one mother families, multifamily society, and society of sovereign states) – and tracing the temporal emergence of one integrative level from the level below, using mass estimations to trace the quantitative doubling time of innovatory entities, Pettersson ([<reflink idref="bib93" id="ref11">93</reflink>]) concluded:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Evolution has been accelerating. Specifically, the period of time before entities of a higher integrative level have emerged from the biological or social level below has, in general, decreased with the advance of time.</item> <p></p> <item> The increasing numbers of people in the world was found, numerically, to approximately continue the same acceleratory trend as evinced by the earlier evolutionary acceleration.</item> <p></p> <item> The following functions of culture also show accelerated change: number of different material used by humans, number of occupations involving special arts and technologies, the maximum speed of transport by mechanical means, the complexity of human-made objects and the degree of skill and knowledge required to produce them, communication speed and diversity, killing capabilities, and data processing capabilities.</item> </ulist> <p>The environment continues to shape trajectories of evolution, and rapidly emerging environmental threats to human, non-human, and ecosystem resilience and sustainability indicate the possibility of complexity reduction and system collapse associated with global warming and mass extinction of diverse species (Falk et al. [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref12">34</reflink>]). A range of problems are evident and increasingly well understood through ongoing scientific enquiry – environmental degradation, pandemics, political polarisation and conflict, war, crime, poverty, chronic disease, mental illness, social disengagement, and inequality. These problems challenge solidarity and collaboration and provoke significant distress (Bericat [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref13">9</reflink>]; Hogan [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref14">47</reflink>]).</p> <p>As the global population of humans grows and becomes increasingly interdependent, the need for CI and collaboration capabilities designed to support sustainable well-being have become increasingly salient and important, for example, as reflected in the design of integrative frameworks and internationally recognised sustainable development goals (OECD [<reflink idref="bib84" id="ref15">84</reflink>]). However, across the international landscape, CI and collaboration capabilities are not widely cultivated as part of lifespan education (Hogan, Hall, and Harney [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref16">51</reflink>]; Hogan and Harney [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref17">52</reflink>]).</p> <p>A key pillar for the emerging discipline of CI (Mulgan [<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref18">80</reflink>]) is the design of new technologies supporting education for CI. Below, we highlight some limitations of current educational technologies including their predominant monological rather than dialogical pedagogy (Wegerif et al. [<reflink idref="bib125" id="ref19">125</reflink>]), and the design focus on individual learning outcomes rather than group learning outcomes, both of which inhibit the learning of CI methods and skills and the coordination of individuals in collaborative project work (Hogan and Harney [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref20">52</reflink>]). At the same time, we highlight promising trends in the design of specific educational technologies that, when synthesised, point to the potential for rapid education system redesign that could support the development and transmission of CI capabilities across the lifespan.</p> <p>Our framework for CI education is grounded in an organismic-contextualist developmental perspective (Overton [<reflink idref="bib87" id="ref21">87</reflink>]; Fischer and Bidell [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref22">37</reflink>]), which orients our enquiry to the potential design of increasingly complex and integrated human action systems that support increasingly coordinated, diverse, and flexible problem solving behaviour in a changing environment. To illustrate the potential, we point to applied systems science as an emerging educational technology (Warfield [<reflink idref="bib118" id="ref23">118</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib119" id="ref24">119</reflink>]; Hogan and Broome [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref25">49</reflink>]; Hogan et al. [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref26">50</reflink>]; Hogan and Harney [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref27">52</reflink>]). Applied systems science is a form of complex and integrated human action that groups can learn to apply to problems using a variety of CI methods, and it can be included as part of a broader curriculum and pedagogy including diverse educational technologies that support the progressive development of CI skills across the lifespan. We characterise applied systems science methods as an advanced form of CI, and we consider system design as a potential unifying focus for education when oriented toward sustainable development goals. In practice, this can be instantiated using an issue- and project-based learning focus in schools and universities, drawing upon a large variety of CI methods.</p> <p>While the development of science and innovation is marked by more specialism and less transdisciplinary synthesis (Bernstein [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref28">10</reflink>]; Pettersson [<reflink idref="bib93" id="ref29">93</reflink>]), we argue that education for CI is consistent with an ongoing expansion of diverse skills (i.e. diversity is a key design requirement for CI). At the same time, by coordinating a range of CI methods and diverse skills, roles, and occupational opportunities, CI education also provides a foundational technology supporting the integration of complexity across a diverse individual skill landscape. CI education grounded in dialogue and the application of CI methods across a range of project-based learning challenges can provide a common bridge for diverse transitions into public and private sector jobs and a shared learning experience that supports cooperative public-private partnerships, which in turn can further reinforce lifespan development of CI skills and advanced human capabilities in system design.</p> <hd id="AN0183940753-4">Evolutionary foundations for CI education</hd> <p>In human systems, collective intelligence (CI) has emerged as a natural by-product of biological and cultural evolution, and CI currently manifests in increasingly innovative ways in the ability of humans to solve problems together as a group-living species (Mulgan [<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref30">80</reflink>]; Baltzersen [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref31">7</reflink>]). Working in the context of evolved human biological constraints, it is cultural evolution (Boyd and Richerson [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref32">13</reflink>]) and the key artefacts of culture that are most important in driving CI capabilities in human systems. CI capabilities are often latent in human systems because many forms of CI are technologically-mediated and involve coordination of individual and group behaviour using diverse technologies (including words, graphics, and mathematics) and artefacts of culture used for problem solving (e.g. paper, pencils, books, test kits, computers, building materials, group learning methodologies, etc.). In simple terms, CI needs to be cultivated as part of the process of lifespan development, and the most important driver of CI skill development is education (Hogan and Harney [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref33">52</reflink>]). The design of CI education technologies presents both a challenge and an opportunity to accelerate adaptive trajectories of cultural evolution.</p> <p>Various forms of CI behaviour have been observed in group-living species, including swarm behaviour, stigmergy, and collaborative behaviour, each of which can be coordinated in human systems using an increasingly diverse set of technologies and machine intelligence supports (Baltzersen [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref34">7</reflink>]). Human systems currently demonstrate a large repertoire of CI behaviours, but this repertoire is dispersed across groups, regions, and the socio-technical landscape and not frequently organised or assembled in systematic ways with bespoke organisational structures (Mulgan [<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref35">80</reflink>]). The limited use of CI assemblies and associated organisational structures is notable in the field of education where a focus on individual intelligence continues to dominate pedagogies and where a focus on teacher-driven and monological practices dominate classroom dynamics, thus limiting the prevalence of dialogical and collaborative teaching practices (Hogan and Harney [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref36">52</reflink>]; Phillipson and Wegerif [<reflink idref="bib94" id="ref37">94</reflink>]). While it is increasingly recognised that CI coupled with machine intelligence has the potential to enhance the adaptive problem-solving capabilities of humans, currently, the organisational structure of human CI is not adequately matched to the complexity of environmental threats we face as a species. Following Ashby's Law of Requisite Variety, we need to develop more complex and integrated human-environment-technical design and control systems that match the complexity of human-environment-technical systems we seek to adapt to (Warfield [<reflink idref="bib119" id="ref38">119</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0183940753-5">Forms of CI behaviour in non-human and human systems</hd> <p>Humans are not the only group-living species, and some of the CI behaviors we seek to build upon in the design of modern human systems are grounded in a longer history of biological evolution. It is useful to distinguish three forms of group behaviour: swarm, stigmergy, and collaborative behaviour (Baltzersen [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref39">7</reflink>]). While <emph>swarm behaviour</emph> involves direct forms of coordinated aggregate behaviour, <emph>stigmergy</emph> involves indirect coordination, through the environment, between agents or actions. <emph>Collaborative behaviour</emph> expands the potential repertoire and flexibility of group coordination dynamics through the operation of specific skills (including joint attention, pointing, vocalisation, sharing, empathy, and reciprocity), which when combined with technologies allow for an infinite range of coordinated behaviour in human groups.</p> <p>If we assume that the design of coordination dynamics in the service of environmental adaptation and sustainable wellbeing is a primary goal of education for CI, then this requires deeper reflection on the co-functioning and design malleability of swarm, stigmergy, and collaborative behaviours. From an organismic-contextualist developmental perspective, an education system designer needs to recognise that the dynamics of swarm, stigmergy, and collaborative behaviour are already ongoing in educational contexts, operating at different levels of integrated complexity (Fischer and Bidell [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref40">37</reflink>]), and the challenge is to transform and facilitate the dynamic goal-directed behaviour of these systems in an effort to address specific adaptive goals.</p> <hd id="AN0183940753-6">Swarm behaviour</hd> <p>Swarm behaviour is observed in fish, birds, bees and many other species, and it can serve a broad variety of adaptive group functions including searching for food, migrating from place to place, finding new habitats, avoiding predators, protection from climactic extremes, and aggregate responding to a host of environmental threats and barriers (Sumpter [<reflink idref="bib113" id="ref41">113</reflink>]). For instance, flocking birds and schooling fish adaptively evade predators by moving together as a group. Described in simple terms, individual group members can use common behavioural algorithms (e.g. initiate evasive movement upon sighting a predator, maintain distance from and align movement trajectory in relation to close group members) that produce complex adaptive behaviour at the group level. Researchers analysing this behaviour have identified a variety of statistical rules (e.g. averaging and threshold responses) and mathematical models that can be used to characterise the observed coordinated group-level behaviour (Chakraborty, Bhunia, and De [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref42">18</reflink>]).</p> <p>In human systems, similar swarm-type behaviour (e.g. based on averaging many independent perceptions, estimates, predictions) can potentially produce a 'wisdom of the crowd' effect, whereby group-level responses provide a group with an accurate view of reality (e.g. estimating the number of marbles in a jar, forecasting an election outcome) and allows groups, under certain conditions, to outperform their best performing individuals working in isolation. As such, human groups can put swarm behaviour to good use as a way to catalyse CI to arrive at group-level estimates, predictions, insights or evaluations (Surowiecki [<reflink idref="bib115" id="ref43">115</reflink>]), and evidence highlights how network plasticity and feedback can enhance the collective wisdom of networks, for example when a network can alter its structural connectivity to amplify the estimates of high-performing group members, and where accurate individuals are more resistant to social influence (Almaatouq et al. [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref44">5</reflink>]).</p> <p>The basic dynamics of swarm behaviour and the practice of optimising network connections and feedback to enhance accuracy of group swarm performance can, in principle, be included in a variety of group project activities in an educational context, including any project-based science learning activity (Chen and Yang [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref45">21</reflink>]) that includes aggregating group perceptions, estimates, and predictions and testing them against reality. Furthermore, swarm behaviour can be used to connect educational institutes with external institutes coordinating citizen science projects (Baltzersen [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref46">7</reflink>]), as many of these projects already leverage online swarm behaviour in largescale projects (e.g. the Galaxy Zoo project, where average aggregate judgements are used to increase the accuracy of categorisation of astronomical objects). Community-engaged teaching and learning practices can also be developed that leverage interactive school and community swarm behaviour around a broad variety of shared goals, including the health and wellbeing of citizens (McMullen et al. [<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref47">74</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0183940753-7">Stigmergy</hd> <p>Stigmergy is a mechanism of indirect coordination, whereby individual actions that leave some information in the environment (e.g. a trace, sign, artefact), stimulates the performance of a succeeding action by the same or different individuals. As such, information provides feedback that influences the coordination dynamics of groups. While direct communication can be overlaid on a stigmergic process, stigmergy does not require direct communication between individuals because coordination is achieved through information traces in the environment. For example, ants will leave a pheromone trace along a path to a food source, and over time a stronger pheromone trace leads to more frequent use of the path by a larger number of ants (Feinerman and Korman [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref48">35</reflink>]). In this way, the full set of paths built by an ant colony becomes a solution to the problem of optimising collective movement of colony members to and from food sources in the local environment, and this solution set changes as the location of food sources in the environment changes (Baltzersen [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref49">7</reflink>]). Stigmergy is similar to swarm behaviour in the sense that coordination between individuals and the emergence of complex group behaviour can be achieved through relatively simple rules that make minimal behavioural demands on agents.</p> <p>Human groups also build upon and coordinate around traces in the environment, and in a broader CI context this affords groups the opportunity to optimise solutions. In the context of interactions with machine systems and online environments that store collective behavioural traces, this process of stigmergy might involve rating an existing solution (e.g. an educational video or article posted by an individual online), re-estimating a solution (e.g. updating a prediction estimate in an online prediction market), editing or completing a solution (e.g. editing a Wikipedia article, or an online argument map), or adapting a completed solution online (e.g. publishing a paper-based textbook in an open online format). In the context of a stable and enduring physical and online environment with sufficient information storage capacity, an increasingly diverse set of solutions can be continuously updated and optimised to address an expanding set of problem situations. Machine intelligence supports (e.g. AI chatbox dialogue) can also be embedded in these environments, for example, to prompt input or reflection on features of the environment, solutions proposed, or to further elicit coordination behaviours needed to advance solutions (Baltzersen [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref50">7</reflink>]).</p> <p>As stigmergy involves coordination around information in the environment, it provides a useful way to promote education for CI, as learning activities can be oriented toward concrete and specific aspects of the shared environment and can include evaluating, rating, re-estimating, editing, and adapting shared solutions related to any area of curriculum and a variety of learning goals. This type of learning can also be done asynchronously or synchronously as it does not necessarily require direct communication. For example, students might work together to edit and advance a wiki article, assigning different roles in advance as students work on researching, writing, and editing sections of the text and negotiating the process of article development (Hew and Cheung [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref51">44</reflink>]). The extent to which the environment where learning is taking place provides clear signals as to how the information trace or solution is to be developed is important if coordination behaviour and dynamics are to be considered truly stigmergic. Naturally, group behaviour in relation to information in a shared environment can be poorly coordinated if there is no clear link between the information stimulus and the set of group behavioural responses.</p> <hd id="AN0183940753-8">Collaborative problem solving</hd> <p>The third form of CI behaviour is collaborative problem solving, which involves direct interaction in smaller groups or teams. The evolution of specific capabilities, including joint attention, gestural communication (e.g. pointing), vocalisation, sharing (of food and childcare duties), and empathy are foundational for collaborative behavior in human groups. Gestural communication and vocalisation provide a foundation for human language and graphicacy, which in turn provided a foundation for early educational technologies (e.g. Cuneiform schooling around 4000BC). The evolution of collaborative problem solving and the further creation of collaborative cultures that permitted transfer of knowledge across generations (e.g. stone toolmaking skills) are seen as key drivers in the evolutionary success of humans (Baltzersen [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref52">7</reflink>]; Hogan [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref53">46</reflink>]).</p> <p>Similar to swarm behavior and stigmergy, analysis of collaborative problem solving behavior helps us to understand how complex forms of group behavior emerge through interaction between group members. The complexity of collaborative behavior also implies the need for complex mathematical models to understand collaborative dynamics related to higher levels of group performance and CI. Initial research highlights a general group ability factor (or CI factor) that emerges from statistical analysis of group performance across a wide variety of tasks. However, this general group ability factor cannot be fully explained by variance in individual intelligence of group members as measured using standard cognitive indicators of individual intelligence (Woolley et al. [<reflink idref="bib129" id="ref54">129</reflink>]). Additional features of collaboration are important. In general, collaboration dynamics predicting group performance are complex and vary across problem situations (Lee and Hung [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref55">63</reflink>]), but four factors have been highlighted as important for collaborative problem solving (Baltzersen [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref56">7</reflink>]) and relevant for CI education: working well with others, cognitive diversity, equal participation, and joint coordination.</p> <p>One indicator of <emph>working well with others</emph> is the social perceptiveness of group members, which has been found to predict the general group ability factor in both face-to-face and online groups (Engel et al. [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref57">32</reflink>]). When it comes to the accuracy of group judgements and the problem solving performance of teams, research also highlights how <emph>cognitive diversity</emph> (e.g. diverse heuristics, knowledge, and perspectives) often predicts better group performance (Page [<reflink idref="bib89" id="ref58">89</reflink>]). Diversity can both enrich problem solving repertoires and reduce the error associated with biased individual judgement. <emph>Equal participation</emph>, for example, as manifest in the even distribution in the conversational turn-taking of groups, also predicts better group problem solving performance (Engel et al. [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref59">32</reflink>]). Equal participation coupled with open conversational exchanges are often important in revealing the diversity of unshared information that individual members possess (Stasser and Titus [<reflink idref="bib110" id="ref60">110</reflink>]). As such, equal participation can often enhance cognitive diversity. It is for this reason that many group facilitation methods emphasise rules around turn-taking and principles of non-domination of group members as a way of optimising cognitive diversity through open sharing of information (Hogan and Broome [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref61">49</reflink>]; Hogan, Hall, and Harney [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref62">51</reflink>]; Hogan et al. [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref63">53</reflink>]). Similarly, group facilitators can play an important role supporting <emph>joint coordination</emph> of collaborative problem solving behavior (Nummi [<reflink idref="bib82" id="ref64">82</reflink>]; Hamilton [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref65">40</reflink>]; International Association of Facilitators &amp; Schuman [<reflink idref="bib100" id="ref66">100</reflink>]) and the use of specific group methodologies (e.g. systems thinking technologies) to support specific patterns of coordinated behaviour designed to enhance group problem solving (Hogan and Broome [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref67">49</reflink>]). In our framework below, we highlight a role for group process facilitators as a potential adjunct role supporting teachers in the classroom, particularly in the context of more complex CI project work.</p> <p>Importantly, as collaborative behaviour involves direct coordination in smaller groups, the range of skills that individuals can bring to bear on a problem, the range of methods they can use, and the number of phases of group work that can be realised, highlight a vast array of coordinated CI behaviour that can potentially be implemented. A key challenge is the intelligent selection from this vast array of options in the design of collaboration support systems. When it comes to education for CI, it is important to envision education infrastructure designs and different educational technologies that, when synthesised, support the development of CI capabilities across the lifespan. This involves thinking beyond the characteristic scope of project-based learning, which involves coordinating activity around a specific set of project goals and outcomes, to a broader focus on how different CI educational technologies can be synthesised to achieve a variety of different collective learning outcomes. In the context of lifespan CI education, this includes a focus on how a set of collective learning outcomes build upon one another over time to support increasingly complex and integrated CI capabilities of groups working together across a range of different types of projects.</p> <hd id="AN0183940753-9">Design of educational technology for collective intelligence</hd> <p>In efforts to envision how educational technologies can support the development of CI capabilities, it is useful to begin with a broad definition of Educational Technology, which incorporates infrastructure, pedagogy and a broader focus on design:</p> <p>Educational technology is the study and ethical application of theory, research, and best practices to advance knowledge as well as mediate and improve learning and performance through the strategic design, management and implementation of learning and instructional processes and resources.[<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref68">1</reflink>]</p> <p>As this definition implies, educational technology refers to more than technical objects – it involves thinking about things in terms of how they work and how to design them to work differently (Dron [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref69">29</reflink>]). The idea that educational technology includes the design of learning is well established (Seels and Richey [<reflink idref="bib101" id="ref70">101</reflink>]), and thus pedagogies are technologies just as much as textbooks or computers. Indeed, what makes any technology distinctively educational is the presence of a pedagogy or pedagogies (Dron [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref71">29</reflink>]). As such, existing and emerging CI technologies (e.g. wikis, crowdsource platforms) become educational technologies when combined with pedagogies, and many technologies not immediately seen as CI technologies (e.g. chalk boards, flipcharts, excel sheets, and LEGO bricks) become CI educational technologies when used as part of collaborative problem solving activities designed to teach specific skills (e.g. arithmetic and graph development skills). Skills can also be coordinated across different phases of work using different CI methodologies in efforts to achieve more complex project-based learning outcomes.</p> <p>More generally, consistent with our organismic-contextualist perspective, and following Laurillard and Sharples (Laurillard [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref72">62</reflink>]; Sharples [<reflink idref="bib103" id="ref73">103</reflink>]), we think of education as a 'design science' and this is reflected in the history of educational system designs, which have evolved in response to specific environmental challenges. The idea of design science, first introduced by Herbert Simon in his book <emph>The Sciences of the Artificial</emph>, allows for a distinction between the natural sciences and a science of design. Natural sciences ' ... are concerned with how things are ... Design on the other hand is concerned with how things ought to be' (Simon [<reflink idref="bib106" id="ref74">106</reflink>], 132–133). Ideally, education fosters skill development and the ability of humans to design solutions in response to environmental challenges, and design sciences more generally support problem solving in complex environments – a process that often involves finding creative ways to resolve tensions between different system drivers, constraints, and requirements in a way that is often equated with natural evolutionary processes (Crilly [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref75">25</reflink>]). However, design differs from evolutionary emergence as it involves human judgement and decision-making along with anticipation of future states of the environment and a design vision linked to a preferred set of adaptive outcomes.</p> <p>Historically, educational technology designs have been modified in response to environmental challenges. For example, in the move from oral cultures to print-based cultures, it has been argued that the educational technology of cuneiform literacy and numeracy provided a response to the challenge of growing numbers of humans living together in shared settlements. This challenge required the design of external memory aids to coordinate group behaviour, keep record of stocks and resources, and document contracts and law codes (Pea and Cole [<reflink idref="bib92" id="ref76">92</reflink>]). Similarly, it has been argued that mass compulsory education focused on individual literacy and numeracy skill development was a design response to the needs of industrialisation and the challenge of maintaining discipline and identity in nation states (Wegerif and Major [<reflink idref="bib123" id="ref77">123</reflink>]). While literacy, numeracy, and graphicacy are valuable educational technologies that have been widely disseminated since the industrial revolution, it has been suggested that the pedagogical focus on individual skill development in traditional school environments, and the specific curriculum focus, has contributed to a cultural shift toward individualism, increased abstraction in thought and behaviour, and a monological orientation to teaching and learning that remains dominant today. Countering this monological orientation, we place as a foundation for CI education a dialogical approach to teaching and learning (Wegerif et al. [<reflink idref="bib125" id="ref78">125</reflink>]), which we argue can better leverage the combined and largely latent potential inherent in swarm, stigmergic, and collaborative problem-solving approaches to CI in action. Dialogic education is about drawing students into dialogue, asking them questions and getting them to ask questions, with the aim that they learn to engage more effectively in dialogue both as a way of learning and as a way of thinking (Wegerif [<reflink idref="bib122" id="ref79">122</reflink>]; Alexander [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref80">4</reflink>]). Although dialogic education is much more than group work most approaches include teaching ways to structure collaborative learning activities with specific 'ground rules' for talk (Wegerif, Mercer, and Dawes [<reflink idref="bib124" id="ref81">124</reflink>]) or 'talk moves' (Michaels, O'Connor, and Resnick [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref82">76</reflink>]). Evaluations show dialogic education to be effective in improving thinking, increasing conceptual understanding and increasing learning gains in subject areas using standardised tests (Howe et al. [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref83">55</reflink>]; Alexander [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref84">3</reflink>]). Dialogical education provides a foundation and natural complement to the groupwork and teamwork activity focus which is a common feature of both project-based learning (Chen and Yang [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref85">21</reflink>]) and applied systems science education, which embeds an issue- and project-based system design focus (Hogan and Harney [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref86">52</reflink>]).</p> <p>While largescale societal infrastructures are often slow to change their core system designs, recent market demands in the form of organisational hiring preferences highlight the need for graduates to develop interpersonal, collaborative problem solving, and teamwork skills (Baird and Parayitam [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref87">6</reflink>]; Chen, Donahue, and Klimoski [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref88">20</reflink>]). These market trends are unsurprising given the accumulating evidence suggesting that teamwork can provide organisations with a competitive advantage (Coff [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref89">22</reflink>]; Delarue et al. [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref90">28</reflink>]; Richter, Dawson, and West [<reflink idref="bib96" id="ref91">96</reflink>]). There is also recognition that socio-technical design problems are increasingly complex requiring greater teamwork across public and private sector work environments, and societies are also increasingly unifying around sustainable development goals and recognising the value of CI in action and an associated reorientation to dialogical education (Wegerif et al. [<reflink idref="bib125" id="ref92">125</reflink>]; OECD [<reflink idref="bib84" id="ref93">84</reflink>]; Hogan and Harney [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref94">52</reflink>]; Carayon [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref95">17</reflink>]). While it is not without its challenges, education for CI grounded in a more dialogical approach to the design and use of educational technologies is currently viable in practice. Below we point to a framework that highlights some key features in a proposed design, and this is followed by an overview of existing educational technologies that can be incorporated into a dialogical approach to CI education.</p> <hd id="AN0183940753-10">A framework for CI education</hd> <p>We propose that education for CI requires an explicit focus on integrating swarm, stigmetry, and collaborative CI methods in a dialogical learning and project-based curricular and pedagogical synthesis. Education for CI also requires grounding educational technology design in a lifespan developmental model that informs decisions regarding levels of integrated complexity of technology design and delivery across different age-groups or skill levels (Fischer and Bidell [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref96">37</reflink>]), and further linking CI education with community and professional organisations as part of broader CI project design and implementation efforts. Our framework for CI education builds upon and extends thinking in relation to applied systems science education (Hogan and Harney [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref97">52</reflink>]), which we characterise as one strand of CI education. Applied systems science education involves the collaborative application of systems thinking and design methods to address complex societal challenges, linking student groups with real-world problems. Given the level of integrated complexity involved in the coordination of applied systems science projects, we argue that this strand of CI education is best implemented after foundational learning building blocks and CI technologies have been introduced (e.g. foundational dialogical skills) and after students have experience working together in groups on singular problems and challenges (e.g. collective judgement and estimation challenges), and after they have worked for a time on more focused project-based learning activities (e.g. collective testing of experimental hypotheses using a sequence of steps and a set of bespoke tools). While we do not specify a particular timeline or sequence of CI activities promoting a specific lifespan developmental trajectory, we note that building the foundation for more advanced forms of collaborative CI in action requires careful design thinking. Also, consistent with our organismic-contextualist model and associated models of skill development (Fischer and Bidell [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref98">37</reflink>]), we argue that component CI skills and technologies need to be coordinated in a graded manner, whereby there is a movement from single actions, to action mappings, to coordination of action mappings that manifest as action systems that have clear goals as part of a principled approach to CI activity in context. The problem context presented in the learning environment, and the nature of the adaptive challenge being addressed, will in turn influence the specific set of coordinated actions that are the central focus for CI education.</p> <p>Consistent with our dialogical approach to CI education, we build upon the work of Hogan and Harney ([<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref99">52</reflink>]) who highlight the importance of integrating a pedagogical focus on (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref100">1</reflink>) <emph>tools</emph>, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref101">2</reflink>) <emph>talents</emph>, and (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref102">3</reflink>) <emph>teams</emph> embedded in a broader framework focused on (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref103">4</reflink>) project <emph>tasks</emph>, (<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref104">5</reflink>) <emph>territories</emph> of application, (<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref105">6</reflink>) <emph>timelines</emph> of project work, and (<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref106">7</reflink>) <emph>totalities</emph> of perspective in relation to systems and system design goals (i.e. the 7-Ts framework; Hogan and Harney [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref107">52</reflink>]). As noted, project-based learning provides a sound basis for reflecting on the design parameters of CI educational activities, as it is often engaged using classroom <emph>teams</emph> that engage in a variety of <emph>tasks</emph> within specific <emph>territories</emph> or niche areas of application (e.g. testing a specific scientific hypothesis, or designing a specific artefact). A focus on group project work as part of CI education also highlights the need for group facilitation in supporting teamwork activities (Harney et al. [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref108">42</reflink>]; Condliffe [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref109">23</reflink>]). While Hogan and Harney ([<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref110">52</reflink>]) previously emphasised how project- and team-based pedagogical approaches can be used to cultivate specific <emph>talents</emph> (e.g. critical, systems, and computation thinking skills and social intelligence), and skilled use of specific <emph>tools</emph> (e.g. argument mapping tools, systems thinking tools), in our framework for CI education we highlight the need for a broader focus on the dynamics and development of collective behaviour. This becomes particularly important for enquiry and design thinking oriented toward lifespan CI skill development and the gradual expansion of integrated complexity in the design and delivery of CI project-based work.</p> <p>In this context, it can be useful to highlight a distinction between curriculum (what is taught) and pedagogy (how teaching and learning is delivered). A coherent lifespan CI education framework requires that curriculum and pedagogy are meaningfully connected. For example, when focused on curriculum design, it is useful to develop integral perspectives in relation to <emph>collective behaviour and CI</emph> as a feature of human and non-human systems (Forsyth [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref111">38</reflink>]; Baltzersen [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref112">7</reflink>]; Malone [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref113">71</reflink>]) and, pedagogically, it is useful to focus on group dynamics and the coordination of CI behaviors in the design of systems (Meadows [<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref114">75</reflink>]; Ostrom [<reflink idref="bib86" id="ref115">86</reflink>]; Jackson [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref116">57</reflink>]; Mulgan [<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref117">80</reflink>]; Hogan and Harney [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref118">52</reflink>]). Also, while we focus below on CI educational technologies that have predominately been used and evaluated in primary and secondary education, we argue that the scope of tools that can be used across school and university and broader lifespan education settings is broad and, at an advanced level can be expanded to a range of systems thinking and design methods for working in the context of technical complexity, process complexity, structural complexity, organisational complexity, people complexity, and coercive complexity (Jackson [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref119">57</reflink>]; Hogan and Harney [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref120">52</reflink>]).</p> <p>Finally, a framework for CI education also needs to include a focus on the groups that are important in realising the potential of CI education in practice. As can be seen in Figure 1, our framework highlights that a number of groups are instrumental in enabling, implementing, and managing an issue- and project-based approach to CI education. Drawing upon the work of John Warfield ([<reflink idref="bib119" id="ref121">119</reflink>]), we note three functions in particular – the <emph>enabling</emph> function, the <emph>implementing</emph> function, and the <emph>managing</emph> function – each combining unique elements and groups of people that are important for the successful delivery of CI education (Warfield [<reflink idref="bib119" id="ref122">119</reflink>]).</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> The <emph>enabling</emph> function is critical for any team to proceed with their project work. It involves (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref123">1</reflink>) a <emph>sponsor</emph> who controls (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref124">2</reflink>) <emph>funds</emph>, and who has sufficient interest in (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref125">3</reflink>) the <emph>ideas</emph> related to an issue. Global research highlights similar elements of an enabling environment for educational transformation, including stakeholder buy-in and demand (Sanders [<reflink idref="bib99" id="ref126">99</reflink>]; Turnbull [<reflink idref="bib117" id="ref127">117</reflink>]; Zion [<reflink idref="bib134" id="ref128">134</reflink>]); technical capacity and resources (OECD [<reflink idref="bib83" id="ref129">83</reflink>]; Honig [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref130">54</reflink>]); and shared understandings of educational purpose and practice (Daly and Finnigan [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref131">26</reflink>]; Spillane, Reiser, and Reimer [<reflink idref="bib109" id="ref132">109</reflink>]). We do not make any assumptions about the public or private sources of funding for education in our framework, as we recognise international differences in the models of funding adopted. Building upon Warfield's insights, we highlight this enabling function as critical and our framework proposes that education for CI will be most impactful if it is oriented to lifespan development and links directly with communities, professional organisations, and public-private partnerships in project design and implementation. While we recognise that education for CI will be embedded within and constrained by the existing curriculum and pedagogies across different institutes and regions, to the extent that some portion of the curriculum can be devoted to societal issues and project-based learning activities, the range of public-private sponsors providing funding for CI education can be expanded. One way or another, societies need to provide funds to enable education for CI.</item> <p></p> <item> The <emph>implementing</emph> function involves coordination between (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref133">1</reflink>) the <emph>stakeholders</emph> in the issue to be explored (including students and any community/professional groups), (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref134">2</reflink>) the <emph>content specialists</emph> (who might provide direct input in a shared learning environment, or content knowledge via curriculum materials) and (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref135">3</reflink>) the <emph>implementers</emph> who act collectively based on (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref136">4</reflink>) the <emph>results</emph> of exploration and project-based learning. Again, given that education for CI can involve pedagogical links with community and professional groups, and any set of local and global stakeholders given the level of connectivity that can be established using online tools, the implementing function can leverage the collective action potential of a large and flexible network. As we note below, citizen science projects provide one established example of how schools and universities can exercise CI as part of a larger network of actors and connect multiple stakeholder groups around a variety of issues.</item> <p></p> <item> Finally, the <emph>managing</emph> function involves (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref137">1</reflink>) <emph>leadership</emph> in identifying issues to focus on and (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref138">2</reflink>) <emph>planning</emph> and designing a scenario for the future, and (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref139">3</reflink>) <emph>brokerage</emph> among the sovereign entities involved, including the sponsors, the teachers and CI group facilitators, the stakeholders (including students and external project partners), the curriculum designers, the content specialists, and the implementers, such that plans that incorporate the results of project-based learning can be translated into results in society. We highlight the curriculum designers alongside other sovereign entities here as any high-level societal changes in relation to the design of educational technologies (i.e. curriculum, pedagogies, CI methods, network structures) involves deliberation and negotiation at regional and national levels. As such, the sovereign entities are seen here as members of a broader formal and informal political system that needs to work together to design, implement, and iteratively evaluate different education system designs. In this way, our framework is open-ended as to the nature of CI education system designs, each of which will need to be evaluated as part of a process of iterative design. Below we focus in particular on the facilitation team including teachers and CI group facilitators who work directly with students and any broader network of groups involved in the delivery of CI education designs. A key challenge here is effective use of tools that support CI in action, and managing group dynamics in effective CI project workflows.</item> </ulist> <p>Graph: Figure 1. A framework for CI education.</p> <p>Again, we have placed project-based learning as a leading edge in our framework, given its focus on specific issues or problems and its suitability as an approach for exercising collaborative problem-solving CI behaviors in a classroom context. In doing so, we highlight the use of educational technologies and CI tools that support collaborative CI behaviour, but we envision swarm behaviour and stigmergic behaviour as being included as part of broader collaborative project-based learning activities. However, we recognise that other approaches are reasonable and feasible given the range of CI tools available and given the need to develop the building blocks of more complex CI behaviours through the learning and coordination of discrete and simple skills. While simple building blocks of CI skill can be exercised through an issue- or project-focused activity (e.g. practice in the use of an online swarm platform by 8–10 year old children rating their preferences for different modes of school transport), the discrete skills (e.g. coordinated, role-assigned, specific wiki writing and editing tasks, followed by class reflection on the stigmergic process) can also be exercised as stand-alone activities outside of a project-based process (e.g. as a series of discrete activity strands linked to a more diffuse curriculum). In the context of developing CI educational technologies, we point to the project-based approach because it allows for a purposeful synthesis of a range of different CI educational technologies as part of a more complex and integrated process.</p> <p>Importantly, a primary goal of our framework is to prompt design thinking in relation to the design of CI educational technologies. In this context, it is useful to highlight sample CI technologies already being used in educational environments while also pointing to key opportunities and needs for further creative design and synthesis.</p> <hd id="AN0183940753-11">CI educational technologies – an overview of the landscape and directions for design</hd> <p>In this section we point to evidence which suggests that project-based learning (PBL) provides a sound pedagogical basis for the further development and design of CI educational technology. We note how existing technologies can be used to further promote dialogue and the integration of swarm and stigmergic CI activities into project work. We describe how creative activities including digital storytelling can further complement and enhance dialogical learning, and how network methods can be used to represent epistemic and collaborative relationships that support better understanding of the dynamics of CI in action. Building upon these foundations, we describe how it is possible to connect classroom CI activity with citizen science CI project work, and we note how the scope of CI project work can be further expanded using collaborative design thinking and systems thinking educational technologies. Finally, we note how CI education can interface with professional organisations and ultimately enhance the way in which professional organisations operate; and we highlight how CI education can also transform the way in which development organisations operate internationally, moving away from a top-down command and control model to an operational model grounded in the principles and practices of CI.</p> <hd id="AN0183940753-12">Project-based learning (PBL) as a foundational educational technology</hd> <p>We have noted that there are many ways to approach the design of CI education technologies, but our starting point is to focus on the established benefits of project-based learning (PBL) and we propose grounding the design of lifespan CI education technologies within a dialogical education and PBL framework. An examination of PBL research reinforces our view in this context. Notably, Condliffe's ([<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref140">23</reflink>]) meta-analyses of PBL studies found evidence linking PBL with a range of positive learning outcomes, including cognitive outcomes (e.g. academic performance), intrapersonal outcomes (e.g. ability to reflect and self-regulate), and interpersonal outcomes (e.g. communication skills and working with others). Kokotsaki and colleagues ([<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref141">61</reflink>]) review of PBL across a range of educational settings also highlighted benefits in terms of increasing learning engagement, both at individual and group levels.</p> <p>When it comes to the particular features of PBL that drive positive learning outcomes, studies have highlighted how the provision of rich problem context, the opportunity to engage with real-world problems, and opportunities to construct knowledge and create products aimed at authentic audiences are key factors contributing to the success of PBL. These same factors were also recommended as design principles for infrastructure and technology to facilitate learning through PBL (Condliffe [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref142">23</reflink>]; Kokotsaki et al., [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref143">61</reflink>]).</p> <p>A specific example of PBL further illustrates how it can be adapted as a pedagogical approach supporting CI and valuable learning outcomes under difficult learning conditions. Notably, Zahir and Maheshwari-Kanoria ([<reflink idref="bib133" id="ref144">133</reflink>]) reported a recent large-scale PBL implementation to mitigate the effects of school closures during the Covid-19 pandemic. PBL was used to facilitate learning for vulnerable learners in remote Kenya, Lebanon, India, Zimbabwe, and Pakistan. Despite the challenges in this learning context, PBL afforded opportunities for students to learn through participation in collaborative dialogues, and through engagement with authentic materials and problem-solving activities relevant to their contexts. In addition to an increase in average scores for academic skills, findings from the study revealed positive outcomes in engagement, attitudes, and mindset toward learning among students, caregivers, and teachers.</p> <hd id="AN0183940753-13">Promoting dialogue and building swarm and stigmergic CI activities into project work</hd> <p>Dialogical education practices have a long history of use across diverse traditions. For example, <emph>halaqah –</emph> a traditional Islamic circle of learning – is widely considered to be a mode of informal learning that maintains and advances communal '<emph>ilm</emph> (knowledge) in a localised contextualised manner that benefits the community as a whole (Ahmed, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref145">1</reflink>]). It relies on an epistemology that highlights <emph>suhba</emph> (companionship) – being in the presence of one another to learn together – which enables <emph>adab</emph> (social mutual respect) and deep learning experiences (Ahmed, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref146">2</reflink>]). <emph>Halaqah</emph> is central to the CI of literary classes in premodern Islamic societies, and it has some overlap with the practice of Dialogic Literary Gatherings (DLGs) (Hargreaves &amp; Garcia-Carrion, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref147">41</reflink>]). DLGs have been used in the EU funded Seas4All project[<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref148">2</reflink>], which sought to transform learning in European primary schools within low socioeconomic contexts through the CI generated by schools working closely with communities. DLGs are circles of learning that invite children to collectively engage with texts on their own terms and to value the collective learning that emerges through this practice. Hargreaves and Garcia-Carrion ([<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref149">41</reflink>]) show the transformational impact of DLGs on not just individual children's learning measured through state-wide standardised tests but also the collective learning of the school communities, once these communities meaningfully include the families that they serve.</p> <p>Dialogic education is increasingly supported by new technologies. For example, Microblogging technologies, such as 'Talkwall' (Major et al. [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref150">70</reflink>]) and 'Talk Factory' (Kerawalla, Petrou, and Scanlon [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref151">59</reflink>]), enable the posting of short comments to group 'walls', where posts can be added, moved and edited by peers in classroom settings. Walls can be viewed on large screens such as interactive whiteboards, or for small-group manipulation on handheld devices. Teachers can pose open questions or statements to which students post responses, comment on others' posts, and 'pin', re-order or organise posted content to signify importance, contrast or grouping of ideas.</p> <p>Studies have highlighted the benefits of using these CI educational technologies in classroom settings. For example, the DiDiAC project, a collaboration between Norway and the UK, involved 20 teachers and over 400 secondary/high-school students working across a range of subjects and explored how dialogue could be supported through use of the Talkwall platform (Smørdal, Rasmussen, and Major [<reflink idref="bib108" id="ref152">108</reflink>]). Students and teachers were co-located, whereby communication – which could, with appropriate foundations and orchestration, be dialogic (Warwick et al. [<reflink idref="bib120" id="ref153">120</reflink>]) – was written and spoken through and around the digital spaces. Furthermore, findings across 210 secondary students working with 13 Teachers across 35 lessons in Norway (Frøytlog and Rasmussen [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref154">39</reflink>]), revealed how Talkwall-mediated dialogues helped connect students and teachers with prior collaborative learning activities, with teachers often asking for justification and elaboration regarding students' contributions. Overall, studies examining the use of TalkWall indicated that patterns of orchestrating digital tool use can support interchange and connection of ideas and understanding, linking learning experiences into meaning-making trajectories that have the potential to enhance collective intelligence.</p> <p>CI educational technologies can mediate and support collaborative activities in other ways. For instance, Knowledge Forum (KF) provides practitioners and learners with an online collaborative environment designed to scaffold knowledge co-construction, specifically, by allowing students to share ideas and data, organize course materials, discuss texts, and cite reference material (Chan and Chan [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref155">19</reflink>]). Furthermore, collaborative writing tools have been designed to encourage productive collaboration using digital argumentation scripts (Jones et al. [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref156">58</reflink>]). Collective authoring of wikis has also been used to support knowledge-building and teamwork in classroom settings, with social presence, perceived usefulness, and team cognitive elaboration found to support positive learning outcomes for students (Luo and Chea [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref157">67</reflink>]). In relation to optimal pedagogical designs supporting collective learning, one study compared a flipped classroom environment with a conventional classroom environment and found that participants in the flipped group generated more Wikipedia entries. Importantly, the flipped classroom environment offered more in-class collaboration and interaction opportunities, leading to more time for active learning (Zou et al. [<reflink idref="bib135" id="ref158">135</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0183940753-14">Digital storytelling supporting dialogical learning</hd> <p>Storytelling has been widely used throughout history as a method for sharing information and knowledge (MacDonald et al. [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref159">69</reflink>]). Digital Storytelling involves a digital media production created with various components such as photographs, subtitles, video, and animation to tell a story (Smeda, Dakich, and Sharda [<reflink idref="bib107" id="ref160">107</reflink>]), which is increasingly used as part of teaching and learning experiences in educational settings (Wu and Chen [<reflink idref="bib130" id="ref161">130</reflink>]). The use of multimodal tools in the story making process offers potential for students to construct knowledge which emphasizes production, thinking, collaboration, and project management (Sadik [<reflink idref="bib98" id="ref162">98</reflink>]).</p> <p>Collaborative learning through digital-storytelling has been investigated in recent studies (Nishioka [<reflink idref="bib81" id="ref163">81</reflink>]). For example, interactive use of the digital storytelling program iTell has been found to have a positive influence on the social skills development of students aged 12–16 years (Sukovic [<reflink idref="bib111" id="ref164">111</reflink>]). Digital storytelling was also found to have a positive effect on students' critical thinking skill, in particular, students' interpretation and evaluation of arguments (Yang and Wu [<reflink idref="bib131" id="ref165">131</reflink>]). The collaborative script writing and the creation of a storyboard enhanced students' abilities to interpret the meaning of specific visual, audio, and textual features within the context of a cohesive and plot-driven structure. The integration of digital storytelling with peer review is also found to foster students' ability to evaluate argument (Hwang, Zou, and Wu [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref166">56</reflink>]; Yang and Wu [<reflink idref="bib131" id="ref167">131</reflink>]). Students engaged in collaborative digital storytelling learned to evaluate information shared by members or their working group, and also the feedback provided by other groups. They co-constructed better understanding by presenting, explaining, negotiating, commenting, and challenging different ideas and perspectives in the scripts and storyboard, and finally made decisions to accept or reject the ideas together (Yang and Wu [<reflink idref="bib131" id="ref168">131</reflink>]). Furthermore, Hwang, Zou, and Wu ([<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref169">56</reflink>]) found that students also reflected on and critiqued their digital stories based on the assessment rubrics and peer feedback, which further consolidated their knowledge and improved their work.</p> <hd id="AN0183940753-15">Epistemic and collaborative network analysis of CI learning processes</hd> <p>Specific algorithmic affordances operating in the background of bespoke CI educational technologies can further help to structure group interactions and the dialogic relationship among participants (Paavola and Hakkarainen [<reflink idref="bib88" id="ref170">88</reflink>]), including affordances that help researchers unpack, analyse, and visualise the complexities of how and to what extent collective intelligence is achieved. Notably, network methods can represent the patterns of connection between coded acts (e.g. individual thinking processes associated with specific utterances such as referencing, justifying, questioning, and suggesting) and how these acts unfold in an interdependent way between participants during learning interactions. In particular, epistemic network analysis (ENA) can model connections made by each participant between an expressed idea and ideas in its recent temporal context (Shaffer [<reflink idref="bib102" id="ref171">102</reflink>]), and thus help to describe how collaborative ideas are developed (Sun et al. [<reflink idref="bib114" id="ref172">114</reflink>]; Mochizuki et al. [<reflink idref="bib78" id="ref173">78</reflink>]). Furthermore, social network analysis (SNA) can be used to visualise the weighted structure of dialogic relationships between students and teachers, while also measuring the collective engagement of each participant within the overall learning interaction (Michaels, O'Connor, and Resnick [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref174">76</reflink>]). Also, the emergence of generative AI highlights the potential for new directions in education (Pavlik [<reflink idref="bib91" id="ref175">91</reflink>]) and for the designs of the CI educational technologies in particular. For example, coordinating both network and generative algorithms, future CI educational technologies may be able to provide instant feedback to practitioners and students on their interactions and the development of their ideas, while also suggesting new learning pathways based on responses to prompts submitted to generative AI large language models (LLMs). In doing so, the participants can track and reflect upon their own CI behaviours, prompt for generative AI inputs, and work to promote better collaborative learning outcomes.</p> <hd id="AN0183940753-16">Connecting classroom CI activity with citizen science CI project work</hd> <p>As noted above, swarm behaviour has been an important feature of numerous citizen science projects (Baltzersen [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref176">7</reflink>]) and can be used to connect educational institutes with external institutes to further extend the CI capabilities of students. In broad terms, citizen science refers to members of the public, or non-specialists, conducting and/or participating in research. It can involve relatively small-scale studies initiated and run by a school class or community group exploring local issues; through to large-scale, national or international participation around a focal theme. Examples of the latter – connecting individuals, schools, communities and wider infrastructures – include the Open University-BBC-British Trust for Ornithology's 'Gardenwatch' mission, distributed and collated through the OU's nquire platform, to which data from 230,000 gardens was submitted in 2019 (Herodotou et al. [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref177">43</reflink>]).</p> <p>Engaging young people in research through citizen science projects is important to enable adolescents to understand inquiry processes and to experience a sense of 'scientific curiosity' (Sharples et al. [<reflink idref="bib104" id="ref178">104</reflink>]). On evaluating school-based inquiry projects, Sharples and colleagues ([<reflink idref="bib104" id="ref179">104</reflink>]) concluded that students develop an ability to argue from evidence and that 'enquiry increased awareness of relations between local decisions and broader environmental and scientific issues' (<reflink idref="bib334" id="ref180">334</reflink>). Work in the area of citizen science has been an important catalyst for design thinking and the development of innovative educational technologies. Notably, a model of participatory design and design-based research around small-scale classroom-based enquiry studies - involving students, teachers, academics, and technology developers – fed into the development and now-global implementation of the nquire platform as a citizen science infrastructure. The nquire platform is now connecting educational institutes with scientists and organisations facing a range of societal problems through local citizen understanding and input. In efforts to support coordination around engagement and learning through citizen science projects, it has been argued that two-way communication between citizens and scientists within projects can lead to the sharing of knowledge and perspectives that help to foster collaborative work, relationship building, and learning (Roche et al. [<reflink idref="bib97" id="ref181">97</reflink>]). Within our framework for CI education, we argue that building CI skills and capabilities is best grounded in projects that foster collaborative work, relationship building, and dialogic learning, as this provides a foundation for a developmental expansion addressing increasingly challenging and complex problems and a cooperative ethos that permeates public-private partnerships working together in the context of complex system dynamics.</p> <hd id="AN0183940753-17">Expanding the scope of CI project work using collaborative design thinking and systems thinki...</hd> <p>In the face of diverse societal and environmental challenges, a future focus is now recognised as increasingly important (Lianaki-Dedouli and Plouin [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref182">65</reflink>]; Miller [<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref183">77</reflink>]). While it is possible to imagine a range of plausible and preferable futures and to consider what might be done in the present to achieve these futures (Hines and Bishop [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref184">45</reflink>]), research suggests that people do not generally think more than a few years ahead, and the futures they do imagine are anticipated as largely similar to the present (Candy [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref185">16</reflink>]). However, techniques are available to help groups collectively imagine a range of futures (Hines and Bishop [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref186">45</reflink>]), for example, by considering emerging trends, imagining the impact of wildcards (e.g. future pandemics) and developing scenarios, and these methods are increasingly used by organisations (McGonigal [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref187">73</reflink>]; Conway [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref188">24</reflink>]) and governments (for example, the UK Government's 'Futures Thinking Toolkit'). Collaborative futures workshops often incorporate group voting on the relevance and plausibility of identified trends, as well as small group work on visualising and imagining scenarios. Importantly, these techniques can be taught to young people (Hines and Bishop [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref189">45</reflink>]).</p> <p>Teach the Future is an organisation developing educational approaches for teaching futures studies at every educational level (collected in their overview 'Library'). Specific games can help students to exercise their imagination and creatively imagine non-baseline futures (for example, Candy &amp; Watson's 'The Thing from the Future' at the Situation Lab). Additionally, Bishop and Hines's framework of foresight techniques have been used by the Brandwein Institute in workshops with students[<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref190">3</reflink>], and a futures thinking toolkit has been integrated into the science curriculum in New Zealand ('Futures Thinking Toolkit'). A playbook repurposes futures framework activities for children, for example, with the concept of trends introduced using statements, and children encouraged to collect classroom objects to consider their relation to trends (King and West [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref191">60</reflink>]; Conway, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref192">24</reflink>]; Bhatti, Rameriz, and Athanasopoulou [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref193">11</reflink>]).</p> <p>Education for CI can be further oriented to the challenge of design in the context of complex systems. In practice, this could involve project work that involves co-creative activities such as participatory systems mapping, design-based conferences, or randomized conversation circles. Participatory systems mapping (PSM) involves small groups working to construct causal maps of an issue, identifying and linking key system factors and their co-effects (Barbrook-Johnson and Penn [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref194">8</reflink>]). Design-based conferences bring together educators, learners, and other stakeholders – from researchers to entrepreneurs – to collaboratively design interventions that address specific community challenges (Luck [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref195">66</reflink>]). These conferences often use design thinking tools to envision multiple futures, with professional designers and funders in attendance to support prototyping of design solutions. Randomized conversation circles involves a number of small groups working in parallel to define common problems, identify system drivers and barriers, and propose solutions for inclusion in larger-group discussion (Winthrop et al., [<reflink idref="bib128" id="ref196">128</reflink>]). The method modulates between deep, open-ended exploration in small groups and targeted, solution-oriented meaning-making in larger collectives. Studies have demonstrated the potential of these methods to foster group learning, improve collective problem-solving, and promote socio-emotional wellbeing or learning groups. PSM, for example, has been shown to foster participant self-efficacy, self-esteem, and pride by explicitly positioning members as valued experts in their local domains (Rambaldi et al. [<reflink idref="bib95" id="ref197">95</reflink>]). The application of these methods can also promote cognitive development through intentional exchange and integration of diverse worldviews, knowledges, and experiences (Eitzel et al. [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref198">31</reflink>]). The relational, alignment-building processes underpinning each method can also support long-term group cohesion and understanding – foundational elements of successful project-based, problem-oriented learning (Young and Gilmore [<reflink idref="bib132" id="ref199">132</reflink>]; Sutton and Kemp [<reflink idref="bib116" id="ref200">116</reflink>]).</p> <p>Overall, while showing significant promise and potential as part of CI education, further research is needed to explore how best to integrate these educational technologies into curriculums, how the related CI skills might be assessed, and which design and systems thinking educational technologies are most effective in different contexts.</p> <hd id="AN0183940753-18">CI education and the work of professional and development organisations</hd> <p>Educational experiences grounded in dialogic learning and the application of CI methods across a range of project-based challenges can provide a solid bridge for transitions into work with diverse public and private sector organisations that increasingly require CI and teamwork to support ongoing operations and innovation potential. Organisations around the world are increasingly challenged by information overload, rapidly changing stakeholder needs, new technologies, and unpredictable market and global disruptions. As the complexity of organisational and operational challenges increases, decisions can less often be taken exclusively by individuals at the top of an organisational hierarchy. In response to complexity and often for commercial reasons, many business organisations have become more collaborative and research highlights how teamwork can provide organisations with a competitive advantage (Coff [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref201">22</reflink>]; Delarue et al. [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref202">28</reflink>]; Richter, Dawson, and West [<reflink idref="bib96" id="ref203">96</reflink>]). However, collaborative decision-making can suffer from groupthink, especially when teams are time and attention poor (Forsyth [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref204">38</reflink>]; Levi and Askay [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref205">64</reflink>]).</p> <p>High performing corporate teams increasingly seek to maximise collective intelligence for important projects by using facilitated workshops. These workshops often combine principles from the Creative Problem Solving (CPS) approach, as originally developed by Osborne ([<reflink idref="bib85" id="ref206">85</reflink>]) and Parnes ([<reflink idref="bib90" id="ref207">90</reflink>]), and Design Thinking Principles (Simon [<reflink idref="bib106" id="ref208">106</reflink>]). Facilitated workshops generally involve an immersive collaboration experience over the course of a day or longer for groups of 5–25 cross-functional organisational team members, facilitated by a workshop leader. A variety of group methods are used to support collaborative enquiry, design thinking, decision-making, and action planning (Hamilton [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref209">40</reflink>]; Nummi [<reflink idref="bib82" id="ref210">82</reflink>]; Broome and Hogan [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref211">14</reflink>]; Schuman [<reflink idref="bib100" id="ref212">100</reflink>]). Improving collective intelligence through creative behaviours, diverse opinions, constructive conflict, and sharing information efficiently and equally results in high quality ideas that align the group. Training in the role of the group facilitator has been identified as an important component of education as professional facilitators are a scarce resource (Hogan and Harney [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref213">52</reflink>]). In the context of CI education, our framework places CI facilitators as an adjunct role alongside teachers as we recognise the challenges associated with facilitating group processes (Broome and Hogan [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref214">14</reflink>]), which are best managed in parallel to the content-oriented focus of teachers, team leaders, and organisational managers.</p> <p>In addition to corporate organisations, international development organisations increasingly require CI capabilities to address issues of global health, sustainability, and conflict resolution. Again, the challenges these organisations face are complex, and present both globally, manifesting in multiple contexts, and locally, being shaped by individual contexts. 'What works' may be different from context to context.</p> <p>Global immunization provides an example of a significant CI challenge facing international development organisations. Years of investment had raised global child immunization rates to about 86% in 2019 (WHO [<reflink idref="bib127" id="ref215">127</reflink>]), prior to stagnation and declines during and following the COVID-19 pandemic (ibid.). The challenges in reaching the estimated 25 million unimmunized one-year olds globally are typically associated with identifying, reaching, and building trust with hard-to-reach and marginalised communities, often living in fragile or conflict-affected contexts and potentially affected by vaccine misinformation (ibid).</p> <p>Similar to traditional corporate and business organisations, traditional models of global health learning are often hierarchical and built around cascading top-down guidance (Shen, Fields, and McQuestion [<reflink idref="bib105" id="ref216">105</reflink>]) and command and control leadership models (Eichler and Levine [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref217">30</reflink>]). Cascading begins at the top of the hierarchy with trained individuals then training their direct reports (Watkins et al. [<reflink idref="bib121" id="ref218">121</reflink>]), a process that becomes weaker at lower hierarchic levels (Engelbrecht et al. [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref219">33</reflink>]). However, the challenges faced in reaching marginalised communities are highly contextualised and require local health workers to be empowered to out, implement, and adapt 'what works' in their context.</p> <p>In recent years, models of learning and project implementation have been changing to include greater use of CI approaches. Notwithstanding difficulties accessing advanced technologies, thousands of community health workers in sub-Saharan Africa, Asia, and Latin America have worked on developing and peer reviewing action plans and sharing experiences of implementation in peer learning programmes facilitated by The Geneva Learning Foundation (Ferrah Conteh and Jones [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref220">36</reflink>]). Underpinning these CI efforts are widely accessible technologies, pedagogies adapted to low bandwidth and low digital literacy environments, and approaches which promote emergent leadership by health workers through defining and representing their own challenges to their peers and to global experts. Watkins et al. ([<reflink idref="bib121" id="ref221">121</reflink>]) document four types of learning occurring in these groups: participants report learning from each other (peer learning); defying distance to solve problems together (remote learning); a sense of belonging to a community (social learning); and learning across country borders and health system levels (networked learning).</p> <p>As an example of CI in practice, in 2020–2021, more than 6000 health workers joined The Geneva Learning Foundation (TGLF) COVID-19 Peer Hub. Participants shared more than 1200 ideas or practices for managing the pandemic in their contexts within 10 days.[<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref222">4</reflink>] Relevant peer ideas and practices were then referenced as participants produced individual, context-specific action plans that were then reviewed by peers before finalisation and implementation. Mapping of actionplan citations (C3L [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref223">15</reflink>]) demonstrate patterns of peer learning, between countries, organisations and system levels. In parallel, TGLF synthesises data generated by peer learners in formats legitimised by the global health knowledge system (e.g. Moore et al. [<reflink idref="bib79" id="ref224">79</reflink>]). The biggest challenge to CI in this context remains one of legitimacy: how can collective intelligence compete with the perceived gold standard of academic publication within this expert-led culture? We argue that as CI education is further developed and extends across the lifespan from school learning environment to work and organisational environments, CI technologies and practices will be further developed, evaluated, and refined and will gain legitimacy as part of broader societal capabilities in CI that are cultivated and reinforced on an ongoing basis.</p> <hd id="AN0183940753-19">Conclusions and future challenges</hd> <p>Education for CI is feasible and educational technologies can be designed to support impactful CI skill development across the lifespan. We argue that CI education can act as a catalyst supporting increasingly collaborative project and system design work across multiple sectors, rooted in a shared dialogical and design-oriented ethos in primary, secondary, and tertiary education. We offer our framework for CI education as a prompt supporting the design of future CI educational technologies. We recognise key challenges going forward including the need to move beyond monological and individualistic approaches to learning and assessment and the need for greater investment in CI infrastructure designs and approaches to learning and assessment that emphasise group goals and learning outcomes. Also important is ongoing innovation of educational technologies that leverage the CI potential of swarm, stigmergic, and collaborative behaviors across a broader variety of project applications and real-world local and global problem situations. Implementing CI education also implies the need to consider new roles within existing societal system architectures, including CI group facilitator roles supporting teachers working across diverse educational contexts, along with CI curriculum developers and technology designers, and management professionals supporting organisational, societal and political cooperative groups, building multigroup team-of-team dynamics in relation to SDGs. Consistent with an organismic-contextualist developmental perspective, we recognise the emergence of advanced CI capabilities, including applied system design skills, as an ideal outcome. To the extent that CI education becomes increasingly prevalent across the globe, lifespan education and development of CI capabilities has the potential to address increasingly complex and currently intractable global challenges that require cooperation across nations, regions, groups, and individuals.</p> <hd id="AN0183940753-20">Disclosure statement</hd> <p>No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).</p> <ref id="AN0183940753-21"> <title> Notes </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref68" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> AECT Definition and terminology committee: https://aect.org/news_manager.php?page=17578</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref101" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> https://<ulink href="http://www.sea4all-project.eu">www.sea4all-project.eu</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref84" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> What Is Shaping Our Future?' Brandwein Institute.https://brandwein.org/shaping-our-future/</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref80" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> https://<ulink href="http://www.wazoku.com/customer-stories/the-geneva-learning-foundation/">www.wazoku.com/customer-stories/the-geneva-learning-foundation/</ulink></bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0183940753-22"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibtext> Ahmed, F. 2019. " The Potential of Halaqah to be a Transformative Islamic Dialogic Pedagogy." In The Routledge International Handbook of Research on Dialogic Education: 1st Edition. 1st ed., edited by N. Mercer, R. Wegerif, and L. Major, 647 – 659. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429441677-1.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ahmed, F. 2021. " Devising an Islamic Approach to Learning and Teaching Through Hadīth Jibrīl: Reorienting Ourselves Toward Educating from within an Islamic Worldview." In Curriculum Renewal for Islamic Education. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429276811-15.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Alexander, Robin. 2018. " Developing Dialogic Teaching: Genesis, Process, Trial." Research Papers in Education 33 (5): 561 – 598. https://doi.org/10.1080/02671522.2018.1481140.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Alexander, Robin. 2020. A Dialogic Teaching Companion. London : Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351040143</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref44" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Almaatouq, Abdullah, Alejandro Noriega-Campero, Abdulrahman Alotaibi, P. M. Krafft, Mehdi Moussaid, and Alex Pentland. 2020. " Adaptive Social Networks Promote the Wisdom of Crowds." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 117 (21): 11379 – 11386. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1917687117.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref87" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Baird, Anthony M., and Satyanarayana Parayitam. 2019. " Employers' Ratings of Importance of Skills and Competencies College Graduates Need to get Hired." Education + Training 61 (5): 622 – 634. https://doi.org/10.1108/ET-12-2018-0250.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref31" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Baltzersen, Rolf K. 2022. Cultural-Historical Perspectives on Collective Intelligence: Patterns in Problem Solving and Innovation, Current Perspectives in Social and Behavioral Sciences. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref194" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Barbrook-Johnson, Pete, and Alexandra S. Penn. 2022. " Participatory Systems Mapping." In Systems Mapping: How to Build and use Causal Models of Systems, edited by Pete Barbrook-Johnson, and Alexandra S. Penn, 61 – 78. Cham : Springer International Publishing.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref13" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Bericat, Eduardo. 2016. " The Sociology of Emotions: Four Decades of Progress." Current Sociology 64 (3): 491 – 513. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011392115588355.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bernstein, Jay. 2015. " Transdisciplinarity: A Review of Its Origins, Development, and Current Issues." Journal of Research Practice 11 : 1.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bhatti, Yasser, Rafael Rameriz, and Andromachi Athanasopoulou. 2023. " The Value Produced in Lending Strategic Problems as Live Cases in Futures Education." Futures 148 : 103132 – 19. doi: 10.1016/j.futures.2023.103132.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bishop, Peter, and Andrew Hines. 2012. Teaching About the Future. London : Palgrave Macmillan.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Boyd, Robert, and Peter J. Richerson. 2005. The Origin and Evolution of Cultures, Evolution and Cognition. Oxford, New York : Oxford University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Broome, Benjamin, and Michael Hogan. 2021. " Core Competencies of Collective Intelligence Facilitators." Systems Research and Behavioral Science 38 (6): 940 – 944. https://doi.org/10.1002/sres.2734.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> C3L. 2022. The Power of Learning Networks for Global Health. The Geneva Learning Foundation COVID-19 Peer Hub Project Report.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Candy, Stuart. 2018. " Gaming Futures Literacy: The Thing from the Future." In Transforming the Future Anticipation in the 21st Century, edited by Riel Miler, 233 – 246. London : Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Carayon, Pascale. 2006. " Human Factors of Complex Sociotechnical Systems." Applied Ergonomics 37 (4): 525 – 535. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2006.04.011.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chakraborty, Dipanjan, Sanchayan Bhunia, and Rumi De. 2020. " Survival Chances of a Prey Swarm: How the Cooperative Interaction Range Affects the Outcome." Scientific Reports 10 (1): 8362. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-64084-3.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chan, Carol K. K., and Yuen-Yan Chan. 2011. " Students' Views of Collaboration and Online Participation in Knowledge Forum." Computers &amp; Education 57 (1): 1445 – 1457. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.09.003.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chen, Gilad, Lisa M. Donahue, and Richard J. Klimoski. 2004. " Training Undergraduates to Work in Organizational Teams." Academy of Management Learning &amp; Education 3 (1): 27 – 40. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2004.12436817.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chen, Cheng-Huan, and Yong-Cih Yang. 2019. " Revisiting the Effects of Project-Based Learning on Students' Academic Achievement: A Meta-Analysis Investigating Moderators." Educational Research Review 26 : 71 – 81. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2018.11.001.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Coff, Russell W. 2003. " Teamwork as Competitive Advantage." International Handbook of Organizational Teamwork and Cooperative Working, 483 – 499.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Condliffe, Barbara. 2017. Project-Based Learning: A Literature Review. Working Paper. MDRC.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Conway, M. 2016. Foresight Infused Strategy: A How-To Guide for Using Foresight in Practice. Thinking Futures. Melbourne, Australia.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Crilly, Nathan. 2021. " The Evolution of "Co-Evolution" (Part II): The Biological Analogy, Different Kinds of Co-Evolution, and Proposals for Conceptual Expansion." She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation 7 (3): 333 – 355. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sheji.2021.07.004.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Daly, Alan J., and Kara S. Finnigan. 2013. " Systemwide Reform: Examining Districts Under Pressure." Journal of Educational Administration 51 (4), https://doi.org/10.1108/jea.2013.07451daa.002.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> De Duve, Christian. 2002. Life Evolving: Molecules, Mind, and Meaning. Oxford : Oxford University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Delarue, Anne, Geert Van Hootegem, Stephen Procter, and Mark Burridge. 2008. " Teamworking and Organizational Performance: A Review of Survey-Based Research." International Journal of Management Reviews 10 (2): 127 – 148. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2007.00227.x.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dron, Jon. 2022. " Educational Technology: What It is and How it Works." AI &amp; Society 37 (1): 155 – 166. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-021-01195-z.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Eichler, Rena, and Ruth Levine. 2009. Performance Incentives for Global Health: Potential and Pitfalls. Washington, DC : Center for Global Development.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Eitzel, M. V., Emmanuel Mhike Hove, Jon Solera, Sikhangezile Madzoro, Abraham Changarara, Daniel Ndlovu, Adnomore Chirindira, et al. 2018. " Sustainable Development as Successful Technology Transfer: Empowerment Through Teaching, Learning, and Using Digital Participatory Mapping Techniques in Mazvihwa, Zimbabwe." Development Engineering 3 : 196 – 208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.deveng.2018.07.001.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Engel, David, Anita Williams Woolley, Lisa X. Jing, Christopher F. Chabris, and Thomas W. Malone. 2014. " Reading the Mind in the Eyes or Reading Between the Lines? Theory of Mind Predicts Collective Intelligence Equally Well Online and Face-To-Face." PLoS One 9 (12): e115212. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0115212.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Engelbrecht, W., P. Ankiewicz, E. De Swardt. 2007. " An Industry-Sponsored, School-Focused Model for Continuing Professional Development of Technology Teachers." South African Journal of Education 27 : 579 – 596.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Falk, J., F. Attig-Bahar, R. R. Colwell, S. K. Behera, A. S. El-Beltagy, J. von Braun, P. Dasgupta, et al. 2022. " Addressing our planetary crisis: Consensus statement from the presenters and International Advisory Committee of the Regional Action on Climate Change (RACC) Symposium held in conjunction with the Kyoto-based Science and Technology in Society (STS) Forum, 1 October 2021." Sustainability Science, 1 – 3. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-021-01059-x.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Feinerman, O., and A. Korman. 2017. " Individual Versus Collective Cognition in Social Insects." Journal of Experimental Biology 220 (Pt 1): 73 – 82. https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.143891.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ferrah Conteh, Zainab, and Ian Jones. 2022. IA2030 Case study 6. View from the frontline: Strengthening the immunization programme backbone (1.0). Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7010079</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fischer, K. W., and T. R. Bidell. 2006. " Dynamic Development of Action, Thought, and Emotion." In Theoretical Models of Human Development. Handbook of Child Psychology, edited by W. Damon, and R. M. Lerner, 313 – 399. New York : Wiley.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Forsyth, Donelson R. 2018. Group dynamics: Cengage Learning.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Frøytlog, Jo Inge Johansen, and Ingvill Rasmussen. 2020. " The Distribution and Productivity of Whole-Class Dialogues: Exploring the Potential of Microblogging." International Journal of Educational Research 99 : 101501. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2019.101501.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hamilton, Pamela. 2021. Supercharged Teams: Power Your Team with the Tools for Success. UK : Pearson.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hargreaves, L.-C., and R. Garcia-Carrion. 2016. " Toppling Teacher Domination of Primary Classroom Talk through Dialogic Literary Gatherings in England." FORUM: For Promoting 3-19 Comprehensive Education 58 (1): 15 – 25. https://doi.org/10.15730/forum.2016.58.1.15.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Harney, O. M., M. J. Hogan, B. Broome, T. Hall, and C. Ryan. 2015. " Investigating the Effects of Prompts on Argumentation Style, Consensus and Perceived Efficacy in Collaborative Learning." International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning 10 (4): 367 – 394.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Herodotou, Christothea, Alison Twiner, Eileen Scanlon, Kevin McLeod, and Jane Seale. 2022. " From Participants to Creators: Considerations for Community-led Citizen Science." In Proceedings of the 16 th International Conference of the Learning Sciences – ICLS 2022, edited by C. Chinn, E. Tan, C. Chan, and Y. Kali, 11 – 18. Hiroshima, Japan : International Society of the Learning Sciences.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hew, Khe Foon, and Wing Sum Cheung. 2009. " Use of Wikis in K-12 and Higher Education: A Review of the Research." International Journal of Continuing Engineering Education and Life-Long Learning 19 (2-3): 141 – 165. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJCEELL.2009.025024.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hines, Andy, and Peter C. Bishop. 2013. " Framework Foresight: Exploring Futures the Houston Way." Futures 51 : 31 – 49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2013.05.002.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hogan, M. J. 2006. " Grappling with Gene-Culture co-Evolution." The Irish Psychologist 31 (11): 290 – 297.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hogan, Michael J. 2020. " Collaborative Positive Psychology: Solidarity, Meaning, Resilience, Wellbeing, and Virtue in a Time of Crisis." International Review of Psychiatry 32 (7-8): 698 – 712. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540261.2020.1778647.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hogan, Michael. 2021. " Facilitation and the Focus on Process." Systems Research and Behavioral Science 38 (1): 173 – 176. https://doi.org/10.1002/sres.2639.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hogan, Michael, and Benjamin Broome. 2020. " Grandmothers, Teachers, and Teams: A Commentary on the Societal Significance of Systems Thinking Facilitators." Systems Research and Behavioral Science 37 (2): 369 – 372. https://doi.org/10.1002/sres.2613.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hogan, Michael, Benjamin Broome, Owen Harney, Chris Noone, Cushla Dromgool-Regan, Tony Hall, Sandra Hayden, et al. 2018. " Integrating Content Expertise and Methodological Expertise in Team-Based Settings to Address Complex Societal Issues – A Systems Perspective on Challenges." Systems Research and Behavioral Science 35 (6): 908 – 915. https://doi.org/10.1002/sres.2522.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hogan, Michael, Tony Hall, and Owen Harney. 2017. " Collective Intelligence Design and a new Politics of System Change." Collective Intelligence Design and a New Politics of System Change, 51 – 78.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hogan, Michael, and Owen Harney. 2022. " Postdigital Applied Systems Science Education: Toward an Integral Framework, Curriculum, and Pedagogy." Postdigital Science and Education 4 (3): 814 – 842. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-022-00305-4.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hogan, Michael, Owen Harney, Mike Moroney, Michelle Hanlon, Su-Ming Khoo, Tony Hall, Monika Pilch, Bianca Pereira, Eric Van Lente, and Victoria Hogan. 2021. " A Group Dynamics Framework for 21st Century Collective Intelligence Facilitators." Systems Research and Behavioral Science 38 (4): 572 – 576. https://doi.org/10.1002/sres.2688.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Honig, Meredith I. 2006. New Directions in Education Policy Implementation: Confronting Complexity. Albany : State University of New York Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Howe, Christine, Sara Hennessy, Neil Mercer, Maria Vrikki, and Lisa Wheatley. 2019. " Teacher–Student Dialogue During Classroom Teaching: Does It Really Impact on Student Outcomes? " Journal of the Learning Sciences 28 (4-5): 462 – 512. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2019.1573730.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hwang, Gwo-Jen, Di Zou, and Ying-Xuan Wu. 2023. " Learning by Storytelling and Critiquing: A Peer Assessment-Enhanced Digital Storytelling Approach to Promoting Young Students' Information Literacy, Self-Efficacy, and Critical Thinking Awareness." Educational Technology Research and Development, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-022-10184-y.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jackson, Michael C. 2019. Critical Systems Thinking and the Management of Complexity: Responsible Leadership for a Complex World. Hoboken, NJ : Wiley.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jones, Janet, Rafael A. Calvo, Kalina Yacef, Peter Reimann, and Stephen T. O'Rourke. 2011. " Collaborative Writing Support Tools on the Cloud." IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies 4 (01): 88 – 97. https://doi.org/10.1109/TLT.2010.43.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kerawalla, Lucinda, Marilena Petrou, and Eileen Scanlon. 2013. " Talk Factory: Supporting 'Exploratory Talk' Around an Interactive Whiteboard in Primary School Science Plenaries." Technology, Pedagogy and Education 22 (1): 89 – 102. https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2012.745049.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> King, Katie, and Julia Rose West. 2018. Futures Thinking Playbook. https://<ulink href="http://www.unsdglearn.org/microlearning/futures-thinking-playbook/">www.unsdglearn.org/microlearning/futures-thinking-playbook/</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kokotsaki, Dimitra, Victoria Menzies, and Andy Wiggins. 2016. " Project-Based Learning: A Review of the Literature." Improving Schools 19 (3): 267 – 277.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Laurillard, Diana. 2012. Teaching as a Design Science: Building Pedagogical Patterns for Learning and Technology. New York : Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lee, David, and ChiaKo Hung. 2022. " Meta-Analysis of Collaboration and Performance: Moderating Tests of Sectoral Differences in Collaborative Performance." Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 32 (2): 360 – 379. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muab038.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Levi, Daniel, and David A Askay. 2020. Group Dynamics for Teams. Sage Publications.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lianaki-Dedouli, Iriana, and Jacques Plouin. 2017. " Bridging Anticipation Skills and Intercultural Competences as a Means to Reinforce the Capacity of Global Citizens for Learning to Learn Together." Futures 94 : 45 – 58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2017.03.001.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Luck, Rachael. 2007. " Learning to Talk to Users in Participatory Design Situations." Design Studies 28 (3): 217 – 242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2007.02.002.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Luo, Margaret Meiling, and Sophea Chea. 2020. " Wiki Use for Knowledge Integration and Learning: A Three Tier Conceptualization." Computers &amp; Education 154 : 103920. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103920.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lupien, Rachel L., James M. Russell, Avinash Subramanian, Rahab Kinyanjui, Emily J. Beverly, Kevin T. Uno, Peter de Menocal, René Dommain, and Richard Potts. 2021. " Eastern African Environmental Variation and its Role in the Evolution and Cultural Change of Homo Over the Last 1 Million Years." Journal of Human Evolution 157 : 103028. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2021.103028.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> MacDonald, Margaret. R., John J McDowell, Linda Dégh, and Barre Toelken. 1999. Traditional Storytelling Today: An International Sourcebook. Chicago : Fitzroy Dearborn Publishers.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Major, Louis, Ole Smørdal, Paul Warwick, Ingvill Rasmussen, Victoria Cook, and Maria Vrikki. 2023. " Investigating Digital Technology's Role in Supporting Classroom Dialogue: Integrating Enacted Affordance Into Analysis Across a Complex Dataset." International Journal of Research &amp; Method in Education 46 (1): 37 – 55. https://doi.org/10.1080/1743727X.2022.2032632.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Malone, Thomas W. 2018. Superminds: The Surprising Power of People and Computers Thinking Together. 1st ed. New York; Boston; London : Little, Brown and Company.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Maree, Conway. 2019. " Contested Ideas and Possible Futures for the University." On the Horizon 28 (1): 22 – 32. https://doi.org/10.1108/OTH-10-2019-0070.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McGonigal, Jane. 2022. Imaginable: How to Create a Hopeful Future–In Your Own Life, Your Community, the World. Banten Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McMullen, Jaimie M., Melissa George, Benjamin C. Ingman, Ann Pulling Kuhn, Dan J Graham, and Russell L. Carson. 2020. " A Systematic Review of Community Engagement Outcomes Research in School-Based Health Interventions." Journal of School Health 90 (12): 985 – 994. https://doi.org/10.1111/josh.12962.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Meadows, Donella H. 2008. Thinking in systems: A primer. Chelsea Green Publishing.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Michaels, Sarah, Catherine O'Connor, and Lauren B. Resnick. 2008. " Deliberative Discourse Idealized and Realized: Accountable Talk in the Classroom and in Civic Life." Studies in Philosophy and Education 27 (4): 283 – 297. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11217-007-9071-1.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Miller, Riel 2018. Transforming the Future: Anticipation in the 21st Century. Abingdon, Oxon : Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mochizuki, Toshio, Hiroshi Sasaki, Takehiro Wakimoto, Yoshihiko Kubota, Brendan Eagan, Ryoya Hirayama, Yuta Yamaguchi, et al. 2022. " Mediating and Perspective-Taking Manipulatives: Fostering Dynamic Perspective-Taking by Mediating Dialogic Thinking and Bolstering Empathy in Role-Play and Reflection for Microteaching." International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning 17 (4): 489 – 518. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-022-09382-w.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Moore, Katie, Barbara Muzzulini, Tamara Roldán, Juliet Bedford, and Heidi Larson. 2022. Overcoming barriers to vaccine acceptance in the community: Key learning from the experiences of 734 frontline health workers (1.0). Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6965355</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mulgan, Geoff. 2018. Big mind: how collective intelligence can change our world.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nishioka, Hiromi. 2016. " Analysing Language Development in a Collaborative Digital Storytelling Project: Sociocultural Perspectives." System 62 : 39 – 52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2016.07.001.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nummi, Pepe. 2021. Handbook of Professional Facilitation: Theory, Tools, &amp; Design. Milton Keynes : Grape People.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> OECD. 2010. Making Reform Happen. https://<ulink href="http://www.oecd.org/env/making-reform-happen-9789264086296-en.htm">www.oecd.org/env/making-reform-happen-9789264086296-en.htm</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> OECD. 2022. The Short and Winding Road to 2030. https://<ulink href="http://www.oecd.org/greengrowth/the-short-and-winding-road-to-2030-af4b630d-en.htm">www.oecd.org/greengrowth/the-short-and-winding-road-to-2030-af4b630d-en.htm</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Osborne, Alex Faikney. 1963. Applied Imagination: Principles and Procedures of Creative Problem-Solving. New York : Scribner's.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ostrom, Elinor. 2009. " A General Framework for Analyzing Sustainability of Social-Ecological Systems." Science 325 (5939): 419 – 422. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1172133.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Overton, Willis F. 2007. " A Coherent Metatheory for Dynamic Systems: Relational Organicism-Contextualism." Human Development 50 (2/3): 154 – 159. https://doi.org/10.1159/000100944.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Paavola, Sami, and Kai Hakkarainen. 2014. " Tribological Approach for Knowledge Creation." In Knowledge Creation in Education, edited by Seng Chee Tan, Hyo Jeong So, and Jennifer Yeo, 53 – 73. Singapore : Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-047-6_4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Page, Scott E. 2014. " Where Diversity Comes from and why it Matters? " European Journal of Social Psychology 44 (4): 267 – 279. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2016.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Parnes, Sidney Jay. 1981. Optimize the Magic of Your Mind. Buffalo : Bearly Limited Publishers.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pavlik, John V. 2023. " Collaborating With ChatGPT: Considering the Implications of Generative Artificial Intelligence for Journalism and Media Education." Journalism &amp; Mass Communication Educator 78 (1): 84 – 93. https://doi.org/10.1177/10776958221149577.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pea, R., and M. Cole. 2019. " The Living Hand of the Past: The Role of Technology in Development." Human Development 62 (1-2): 14 – 39. https://doi.org/10.1159/000496073.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pettersson, Max. 1996. Complexity and Evolution. New York : Cambridge University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Phillipson, Neil, and Rupert Wegerif. 2016. Dialogic Education: Mastering Core Concepts Through Thinking Together.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rambaldi, Giacomo, Peter A. Kwaku Kyem, Mike McCall, and Daniel Weiner. 2006. " Participatory Spatial Information Management and Communication in Developing Countries." The Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries 25 (1): 1 – 9. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1681-4835.2006.tb00162.x.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Richter, A. W., J. F. Dawson, and M. A. West. 2011. " The Effectiveness of Teams in Organizations: A Meta-Analysis." The International Journal of Human Resource Management 22 (13): 2749 – 2769. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2011.573971.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Roche, Joseph, Laura Bell, Cecília Galvão, Yaela N. Golumbic, Laure Kloetzer, Nieke Knoben, Mari Laakso, et al. 2020. " Citizen Science, Education, and Learning: Challenges and Opportunities." Frontiers in Sociology 5), https://doi.org/10.3389/fsoc.2020.613814.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sadik, Alaa. 2008. " Digital Storytelling: A Meaningful Technology-Integrated Approach for Engaged Student Learning." Educational Technology Research and Development 56 (4): 487 – 506. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-008-9091-8.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sanders, Mavis G. 2014. " Principal Leadership for School, Family, and Community Partnerships: The Role of a Systems Approach to Reform Implementation." American Journal of Education 120 (2): 233 – 255. https://doi.org/10.1086/674374.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schuman, Sandy 2005. The IAF Handbook of Group Facilitation: Best Practices from the Leading Organization in Facilitation. San Francisco : Jossey-Bass.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Seels, Barbara B., and Rita Richey. 1994. Instructional Technology: The Definition and Domains of the Field. Washington, DC : Association for Educational Communications and Technology.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shaffer, David W. 2017. Quantitative Ethnography. Madison, WI : Cathcart Press. ISBN: 978-0578191683.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sharples, Mike. 2009. " Towards an Interdisciplinary Design Science of Learning." In In European Conference on Technology Enhanced Learning, 3 – 4. Berlin : Springer.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sharples, Mike, Eileen Scanlon, Shaaron Ainsworth, Stamatina Anastopoulou, Trevor Collins, Charles Crook, Ann Jones, et al. 2015. " Personal Inquiry: Orchestrating Science Investigations Within and Beyond the Classroom." Journal of the Learning Sciences 24 (2): 308 – 341. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2014.944642.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shen, Angela K, Rebecca Fields, and Mike McQuestion. 2014. " The Future of Routine Immunization in the Developing World: Challenges and Opportunities." Global Health: Science and Practice 2 (4): 381 – 394. https://doi.org/10.9745/GHSP-D-14-00137.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Simon, Herbert. 1969. The Sciences of the Artificial. Cambridge, MA : MIT Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Smeda, Najat, Eva Dakich, and Nalin Sharda. 2014. " The Effectiveness of Digital Storytelling in the Classrooms: A Comprehensive Study." Smart Learning Environments 1 (1): 6. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-014-0006-3.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Smørdal, Ole, Ingvill Rasmussen, and Louis Major. 2021. " Supporting Classroom Dialogue Through Developing the Talkwall Microblogging Tool: Considering Emerging Concepts That Bridge Theory, Practice, and Design." Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy 16 (2): 50 – 64. https://doi.org/10.18261/issn.1891-943x-2021-02-02.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Spillane, James P., Brian J. Reiser, and Todd Reimer. 2002. " Policy Implementation and Cognition: Reframing and Refocusing Implementation Research." Review of Educational Research 72 (3): 387 – 431. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543072003387.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stasser, Garold, and William Titus. 1985. " Pooling of Unshared Information in Group Decision Making: Biased Information Sampling During Discussion." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 48 : 1467 – 1478. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.48.6.1467.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sukovic, Suzana. 2014. " iTell: Transliteracy and Digital Storytelling." Australian Academic &amp; Research Libraries 45 (3): 205 – 229. https://doi.org/10.1080/00048623.2014.951114.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sullivan, Alexis P., Douglas W. Bird, and George H. Perry. 2017. " Human Behaviour as a Long-Term Ecological Driver of non-Human Evolution." Nature Ecology &amp; Evolution 1 (3): 0065. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-016-0065.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sumpter, David. J. 2010. Collective Animal Behavior. Princeton : Princeton University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sun, Meng, Minhong Wang, Rupert Wegerif, and Jun Peng. 2022. " How do Students Generate Ideas Together in Scientific Creativity Tasks Through Computer-Based Mind Mapping? " Computers &amp; Education 176 : 104359. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104359.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Surowiecki, J. 2004. The Wisdom of Crowds: Why the Many are Smarter Than the Few, and How Collective Wisdom Shapes Business, Economies, Societies, and Nations. New York : Random House.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sutton, Sharon E., and Susan P. Kemp. 2006. " Integrating Social Science and Design Inquiry Through Interdisciplinary Design Charrettes: An Approach to Participatory Community Problem Solving." American Journal of Community Psychology 38 (1-2): 51 – 62. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-006-9065-0.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Turnbull, Barbara. 2002. " Teacher Participation and Buy-In: Implications for School Reform Initiatives." Learning Environments Research 5 (3): 235 – 252. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021981622041.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Warfield, John. N. 1974. Structuring Complex Systems, A Battelle Monograph no. 4. Columbus, Ohio : Battelle Memorial Institute.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Warfield, John N. 1976. Societal Systems: Planning, Policy, and Complexity, Wiley Series on Systems Engineering and Analysis. New York : Wiley.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Warwick, Paul, Victoria Cook, Maria Vrikki, Louis Major, and Ingvill Rasmussen. 2020. " Realising 'Dialogic Intentions' When Working with a Microblogging Tool in Secondary School Classrooms." Learning, Culture and Social Interaction 24 : 100376. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2019.100376.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Watkins, Karen E., Lorilee R. Sandmann, Cody Aaron Dailey, Beixi Li, Sung-Eun Yang, Robert S. Galen, and Reda Sadki. 2022. " Accelerating Problem-Solving Capacities of Sub-National Public Health Professionals: An Evaluation of a Digital Immunization Training Intervention." BMC Health Services Research 22 (1): 736. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-022-08138-4.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wegerif, Rupert. 2019. " Towards a Dialogic Theory of Education for the Internet age." In The Routledge International Handbook of Research on Dialogic Education, edited by Neil Mercer, Rupert Wegerif, and Louis Major, 14 – 26. London : Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429441677-3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wegerif, Rupert, and Louis Major. 2023. The theory of Educational Technology: A dialogic foundation for design. Routledge. Manuscript in Preparation.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wegerif, Rupert, Neil Mercer, and Lyn Dawes. 1999. " From Social Interaction to Individual Reasoning: An Empirical Investigation of a Possible Socio-Cultural Model of Cognitive Development." Learning and Instruction 9 (6): 493 – 516. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(99)00013-4.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wegerif, Rupert, Shengpeng Shi, Ana Luisa Rubio-Jimenez, Yun Long, Qian Liu, and Chih-Ching Chang. 2023. Dialogic Education: Tensions and Dilemmas.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wermer, Engelbrecht, Piet Ankiewicz, and E. Estelle De Swardt. 2007. " An Industry-Sponsored, School-Focused Model for Continuing Professional Development of Technology Teachers." South African Journal of Education 27 : 579 – 596. doi: 10.1052/0EJC32147.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> WHO. 2022. "Immunization coverage" (website, accessed 22.03.2023) World Health Organisation. Geneva. https://<ulink href="http://www.who.int/news/item/15-07-2022-covid-19-pandemic-fuels-largest-continued-backslide-in-vaccinations-in-three-decades">www.who.int/news/item/15-07-2022-covid-19-pandemic-fuels-largest-continued-backslide-in-vaccinations-in-three-decades</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Winthrop, R., A. Barton, M. Ershadi, and L. Ziegler. 2021. Collaborating to Transform and Improve Education Systems. Center for Universal Education at Brookings. https://<ulink href="http://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Family%5fSchool%5fEngagement%5fPlaybook%5fFINAL.pdf">www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Family%5fSchool%5fEngagement%5fPlaybook%5fFINAL.pdf</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Woolley, Anita Williams, Christopher F. Chabris, Alex Pentland, Nada Hashmi, and Thomas W. Malone. 2010. " Evidence for a Collective Intelligence Factor in the Performance of Human Groups." Science 330 (6004): 686 – 688. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1193147.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wu, Jing, and Der-Thanq Victor Chen. 2020. " A Systematic Review of Educational Digital Storytelling." Computers &amp; Education 147), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103786.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yang, Ya-Ting C., and Wan-Chi I. Wu. 2012. " Digital Storytelling for Enhancing Student Academic Achievement, Critical Thinking, and Learning Motivation: A Year-Long Experimental Study." Computers &amp; Education 59 (2): 339 – 352. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.12.012.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Young, Jason C., and Michael P. Gilmore. 2013. " The Spatial Politics of Affect and Emotion in Participatory GIS." Annals of the Association of American Geographers 103 (4): 808 – 823. https://doi.org/10.1080/00045608.2012.707596.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zahir, L., and J. Maheshwari-Kanoria. 2022. " Project-Based Learning as an Innovative COVID-19 Response." Journal on Education in Emergencies 8 (3): 245 – 258.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zion, Shelley D. 2009. " Systems, Stakeholders, and Students: Including Students in School Reform." Improving Schools 12 (2): 131 – 143. https://doi.org/10.1177/1365480209105577.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zou, Di, Haoran Xie, Fu Lee Wang, and Reggie Kwan. 2020. " Flipped Learning with Wikipedia in Higher Education." Studies in Higher Education 45 (5): 1026 – 1045. doi: 10.1080/03075079.2020.1750195.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Michael J. Hogan; Adam Barton; Alison Twiner; Cynthia James; Farah Ahmed; Imogen Casebourne; Ian Steed; Pamela Hamilton; Shengpeng Shi; Yi Zhao; Owen M. Harney and Rupert Wegerif</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author</p> <p></p> <p>Michael Hogan is Senior Lecturer at The School of Psychology, University of Galway, Ireland. His research focuses on human lifespan development, well-being, and collective intelligence design.</p> <p>Adam Barton is a Cambridge International Scholar at the University of Cambridge, UK, and a researcher at the Center for Universal Education at the Brookings Institution in Washington, DC. His research focuses on educational change; in particular, he studies the socio-cognitive dimensions of reform implementation, including buy-in, belief, and community co-design.</p> <p>Alison Twiner is Research Associate for Camtree (the Cambridge Teacher Research Exchange) and Research By-Fellow at Hughes Hall. Her research focuses on the educational use of different digital technologies; educational dialogue and meaning making particularly from a multimodal perspective; and supporting teachers' professional development.</p> <p>Cynthia C. James is a PhD candidate at the Faculty of Education, University of Cambridge, United Kingdom. Her research focuses on teacher professional development, online community of practice, and indigenous pedagogy.</p> <p>Farah Ahmed is Leverhulme Early Career Research Fellow at the Faculty of Education, University of Cambridge. Her research focuses on Islamic philosophies of education, dialogic and digital pedagogies, teacher professional development and professional learning communities.</p> <p>Imogen Casebourne is Research Lead of the Innovation Lab at DEFI, The Bridge, Hughes Hall, University of Cambridge, UK. Her research focuses on design approaches such as futures thinking in the design, development and implementation of educational technology, including mobile technology, AI and immersive experiences. She is interested in the role technology may play in supporting experiences of community and serendipity in learning.</p> <p>Ian Steed , (MSc, Open University) is a Consultant in the humanitarian sector and By-Fellow of Hughes Hall, University of Cambridge, UK. He works on digital learning and organisational change in the global humanitarian and health sectors.</p> <p>Pam Hamilton is the author of The Workshop Book and Supercharged Teams, manuals for applying collective intelligence and teamwork methods in a multinational business setting. Paraffin won a Queen's Award and created the public sector collaboration methodology Project Bridge.</p> <p>Shengpeng Shi is a PhD candidate at the University of Cambridge. He is also a research assistant at Cambridge's Innovation Lab in the Digital Education Futures Initiative (DEFI). His research focuses on dialogic education, educational technology, and educational design-based research.</p> <p>Yi Zhao is a PhD student at the Faculty of Education, University of Cambridge, UK. Her research focuses on dialogue and digital technology in the classroom.</p> <p>Owen Harney is a Postdoctoral Researcher in the School of Psychology at the University of Galway. His research interests include collective intelligence, collaborative learning, and, equity and quality in higher education.</p> <p>Rupert Wegerif , (PhD, Open University) is a Professor in the Faculty of Education, University of Cambridge, UK. His research focuses on the theory and practice of dialogic education with technology.</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib93" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib68" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib112" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib80" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib103" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib84" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib125" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib87" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib118" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib119" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib94" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib113" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib115" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib74" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib129" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib89" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib110" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref63"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib82" firstref="ref64"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref65"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib100" firstref="ref66"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref69"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib101" firstref="ref70"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib106" firstref="ref74"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref75"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib92" firstref="ref76"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib123" firstref="ref77"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib122" firstref="ref79"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib124" firstref="ref81"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib76" firstref="ref82"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref83"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref88"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref89"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref90"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib96" firstref="ref91"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref95"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref108"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref109"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl57" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref111"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl58" bibid="bib71" firstref="ref113"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl59" bibid="bib75" firstref="ref114"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl60" bibid="bib86" firstref="ref115"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl61" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref116"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl62" bibid="bib99" firstref="ref126"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl63" bibid="bib117" firstref="ref127"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl64" bibid="bib134" firstref="ref128"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl65" bibid="bib83" firstref="ref129"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl66" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref130"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl67" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref131"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl68" bibid="bib109" firstref="ref132"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl69" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref141"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl70" bibid="bib133" firstref="ref144"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl71" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref147"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl72" bibid="bib70" firstref="ref150"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl73" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref151"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl74" bibid="bib108" firstref="ref152"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl75" bibid="bib120" firstref="ref153"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl76" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref154"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl77" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref155"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl78" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref156"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl79" bibid="bib67" firstref="ref157"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl80" bibid="bib135" firstref="ref158"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl81" bibid="bib69" firstref="ref159"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl82" bibid="bib107" firstref="ref160"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl83" bibid="bib130" firstref="ref161"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl84" bibid="bib98" firstref="ref162"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl85" bibid="bib81" firstref="ref163"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl86" bibid="bib111" firstref="ref164"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl87" bibid="bib131" firstref="ref165"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl88" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref166"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl89" bibid="bib88" firstref="ref170"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl90" bibid="bib102" firstref="ref171"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl91" bibid="bib114" firstref="ref172"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl92" bibid="bib78" firstref="ref173"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl93" bibid="bib91" firstref="ref175"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl94" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref177"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl95" bibid="bib104" firstref="ref178"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl96" bibid="bib334" firstref="ref180"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl97" bibid="bib97" firstref="ref181"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl98" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref182"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl99" bibid="bib77" firstref="ref183"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl100" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref184"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl101" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref185"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl102" bibid="bib73" firstref="ref187"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl103" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref188"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl104" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref191"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl105" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref193"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl106" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref195"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl107" bibid="bib128" firstref="ref196"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl108" bibid="bib95" firstref="ref197"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl109" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref198"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl110" bibid="bib132" firstref="ref199"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl111" bibid="bib116" firstref="ref200"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl112" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref205"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl113" bibid="bib85" firstref="ref206"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl114" bibid="bib90" firstref="ref207"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl115" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref211"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl116" bibid="bib127" firstref="ref215"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl117" bibid="bib105" firstref="ref216"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl118" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref217"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl119" bibid="bib121" firstref="ref218"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl120" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref219"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl121" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref220"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl122" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref223"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl123" bibid="bib79" firstref="ref224"></nolink> |
|---|---|
| Header | DbId: eric DbLabel: ERIC An: EJ1468148 AccessLevel: 3 PubType: Academic Journal PubTypeId: academicJournal PreciseRelevancyScore: 0 |
| IllustrationInfo | |
| Items | – Name: Title Label: Title Group: Ti Data: Education for Collective Intelligence – Name: Language Label: Language Group: Lang Data: English – Name: Author Label: Authors Group: Au Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Michael+J%2E+Hogan%22">Michael J. Hogan</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Adam+Barton%22">Adam Barton</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Alison+Twiner%22">Alison Twiner</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Cynthia+James%22">Cynthia James</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Farah+Ahm%22">Farah Ahm</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Imogen+Casebourne%22">Imogen Casebourne</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Ian+Ste%22">Ian Ste</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Pamela+Hamilton%22">Pamela Hamilton</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Shengpeng+Shi%22">Shengpeng Shi</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Yi+Zhao%22">Yi Zhao</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Owen+M%2E+Harney%22">Owen M. Harney</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8756-2537">0000-0002-8756-2537</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Rupert+Wegerif%22">Rupert Wegerif</searchLink> – Name: TitleSource Label: Source Group: Src Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Irish+Educational+Studies%22"><i>Irish Educational Studies</i></searchLink>. 2025 44(1):137-166. – Name: Avail Label: Availability Group: Avail Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals – Name: PeerReviewed Label: Peer Reviewed Group: SrcInfo Data: Y – Name: Pages Label: Page Count Group: Src Data: 30 – Name: DatePubCY Label: Publication Date Group: Date Data: 2025 – Name: TypeDocument Label: Document Type Group: TypDoc Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Evaluative – Name: Subject Label: Descriptors Group: Su Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Intelligence%22">Intelligence</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Technology%22">Educational Technology</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Problem+Solving%22">Problem Solving</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Group+Behavior%22">Group Behavior</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Active+Learning%22">Active Learning</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Projects%22">Student Projects</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Cooperation%22">Cooperation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Cooperative+Learning%22">Cooperative Learning</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Instructional+Design%22">Instructional Design</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Systems+Approach%22">Systems Approach</searchLink> – Name: DOI Label: DOI Group: ID Data: 10.1080/03323315.2023.2250309 – Name: ISSN Label: ISSN Group: ISSN Data: 0332-3315<br />1747-4965 – Name: Abstract Label: Abstract Group: Ab Data: Collective Intelligence (CI) is important for groups that seek to address shared problems. CI in human groups can be mediated by educational technologies. The current paper presents a framework to support design thinking in relation to CI educational technologies. Our framework is grounded in an organismic-contextualist developmental perspective that orients enquiry to the design of increasingly complex and integrated CI systems that support coordinated group problem solving behaviour. We focus on pedagogies and infrastructure and we argue that project-based learning provides a sound basis for CI education, allowing for different forms of CI behaviour to be integrated, including swarm behaviour, stigmergy, and collaborative behaviour. We highlight CI technologies already being used in educational environments while also pointing to opportunities and needs for further creative designs to support the development of CI capabilities across the lifespan. We argue that CI education grounded in dialogue and the application of CI methods across a range of project-based learning challenges can provide a common bridge for diverse transitions into public and private sector jobs and a shared learning experience that supports cooperative public-private partnerships, which can further reinforce advanced human capabilities in system design. – Name: AbstractInfo Label: Abstractor Group: Ab Data: As Provided – Name: DateEntry Label: Entry Date Group: Date Data: 2025 – Name: AN Label: Accession Number Group: ID Data: EJ1468148 |
| PLink | https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1468148 |
| RecordInfo | BibRecord: BibEntity: Identifiers: – Type: doi Value: 10.1080/03323315.2023.2250309 Languages: – Text: English PhysicalDescription: Pagination: PageCount: 30 StartPage: 137 Subjects: – SubjectFull: Intelligence Type: general – SubjectFull: Educational Technology Type: general – SubjectFull: Problem Solving Type: general – SubjectFull: Group Behavior Type: general – SubjectFull: Active Learning Type: general – SubjectFull: Student Projects Type: general – SubjectFull: Cooperation Type: general – SubjectFull: Cooperative Learning Type: general – SubjectFull: Instructional Design Type: general – SubjectFull: Systems Approach Type: general Titles: – TitleFull: Education for Collective Intelligence Type: main BibRelationships: HasContributorRelationships: – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Michael J. Hogan – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Adam Barton – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Alison Twiner – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Cynthia James – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Farah Ahm – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Imogen Casebourne – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Ian Ste – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Pamela Hamilton – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Shengpeng Shi – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Yi Zhao – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Owen M. Harney – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Rupert Wegerif IsPartOfRelationships: – BibEntity: Dates: – D: 01 M: 01 Type: published Y: 2025 Identifiers: – Type: issn-print Value: 0332-3315 – Type: issn-electronic Value: 1747-4965 Numbering: – Type: volume Value: 44 – Type: issue Value: 1 Titles: – TitleFull: Irish Educational Studies Type: main |
| ResultId | 1 |
