Our panel is titled “Harnessing the Power of AI to Assess and Mitigate the Impact of Climate Change.”

This first session brings together a Renewable Energy Research Centre in the Philippines, a Computer Science Data Centre in Indonesia, a community-led initiative on deployment and equity for marginalised communities in Asia, and myself, representing open education through several European-funded projects co-led by The Open University, including partners in Latin America.

It is a valuable opportunity for an intersectoral, interdisciplinary and intergenerational conversation. The audience is expected to include school students and facilitators from the Indonesian government. My contribution focuses on climate change science education.

Drawing on the CONNECT research programme, my talk examines where AI genuinely supports learning and action — and where it overpromises. Three conditions matter:

For students: genuine problems they care about, which activate their interests and competencies.

For teachers: genuine alignment with the national curriculum.

For communities: genuine partnerships built on participatory approaches.

I will illustrate this with three examples.

In Brazil, students and communities addressed the severe droughts affecting the Amazon rainforest. Together we mapped the effects of climate change and developed mitigation plans, working with the local secretary of education, indigenous and riverine communities, local and international researchers, and regional media.

In Greece, students used drones to capture images of forest fires and trained a classification system, coded in Scratch, to support forest protection. The project engaged families, national and local park teams, and environmental professionals.

In the United Kingdom, students used AI to design a fundraising campaign on energy efficiency — many drawn to the idea of solar panels for charging mobile phones. Using AI-generated visual maps, they explained energy transfer, coded the diagrams, and developed campaigns to persuade potential funders.

Integrating open schooling with AI in schools is not straightforward. It is complicated by epistemic beliefs that AI either overpromises or undersells, and by the misconception of learning as the memorisation of content. Used well, AI should do the opposite: deepen science capital, including students’ levels of interest and engagement.

Building AI climate tools responsibly. From a Responsible Research and Innovation perspective, the question is what it takes to develop these tools well, and how to widen access so that learners and educators are not left behind. Open schooling — a term coined by the European Commission in 2015, the same year as the Sustainable Development Goals, yet still not widely understood — refers to real-world problem-solving with multiple stakeholders: schools working alongside communities, universities, enterprises and local government. The aim is to align scientific innovation more closely with societal needs, while enabling learners across sectors to develop their capabilities as connected researchers, project coordinators and network leaders.

Governance and collaboration for open science. Drawing on UNESCO advisory work and large EU research networks, the final question is which governance and collaboration models genuinely work for open science and shared data. The literature on RRI, open science, ethics and integrity is substantial. It can be summarised in six components — open access, governance, gender equity, science and technology literacy, public engagement, and ethics — and eight features, organised in four pairs: diverse and inclusive; open and transparent; anticipative and reflective; responsive and adaptive. Across these projects, the most successful student work was consistently underpinned by democratic, participatory processes.

Collective action for a sustainable future: turning skills into partnerships

The 2026 Global Sustainable Development Congress meets in Jakarta around one idea: collective action for a sustainable future. The phrase is a challenge. It asks us to stop working alone, to connect knowledge across fields, and to turn good intentions into real change.

This article sets out what that idea means at GSDC 2026, and how one hands-on workshop tries to put it into practice — by helping people build skills, partnerships and a real funding proposal in a single session.

What GSDC 2026 is really about

Several shifts run through the Congress. Together they describe a new way of working.

The SDGs are connected, not separate. Real problems do not respect silos. GSDC 2026 looks especially at how five goals reinforce each other:

• Climate action (SDG 13)
• Quality education (SDG 4)
• Health and wellbeing (SDG 3)
• Reduced inequalities (SDG 10)
• Partnerships (SDG 17)

Technology is a strong 2026 theme. The focus is on AI for sustainable development, digital education and learning systems, data-driven climate and health solutions, and responsible technology governance. The question is not whether to use AI, but how to use it well — and for whom.

Universities are change actors, not observers. This is a real shift in thinking. Universities are expected to act as living laboratories. Research must connect to policy and communities. And impact is measured by real-world change, not by publications alone.

Partnerships are the outcome. The Congress values cross-sector collaboration across education, industry and government; international consortium building; and the funding and scaling of solutions. Success at GSDC is not a good presentation. It is a new partnership and a funded initiative.

Solutions must work in the real world. From Jakarta, the Asia-Pacific emphasis is clear: climate resilience in Global South contexts, equity and inclusive growth, and scaling education and innovation across diverse systems. Ideas that only work in Europe are not enough. They must work in real, unequal global contexts.

A workshop built for collective action

Our hands-on workshop takes this theme literally. Its objective is collective action: to care about a shared problem, to integrate knowledge, and to do something about it — while developing personal and organisational skills along the way.

At its heart are the 8Cs: eight transversal, transferable skills, grouped as CARE, KNOW and DO.

• CARE — Collaborate, Communicate, Cultivate
• KNOW — Comprehend, Construct, Create
• DO — Coordinate, Catalyse

These are the skills that move a group from talking to building. No single person holds all eight at a high level. A network does. That simple truth is the reason we work in alliances.

Two parts: a personal plan, then collective action

The session has two parts.

Part 1 — a personal skills plan. Each person draws their own skill self-portrait. They rate the 8Cs honestly, see where they are strong and where they are growing, and decide who they need beside them. A live, shared report then reveals the collective skill of the whole room — the “smart skill” the group holds together.

Part 2 — collective action to develop skills. Participants form three groups and take on a role: Connected Researcher, Project Coordinator, or Network Leader. Each role owns one part of a real research proposal — Excellence, Impact, or Implementation. A real challenge goes at the centre of the table, and each group builds around it, practising its own cluster of skills.

We anchor the work in challenges that matter: Climate Action, and Creative and Inclusive Societies.

Grounded in real funding

To keep the work real, the groups design against open European calls under Horizon Europe Cluster 2 (Culture, Creativity and Inclusive Society) — the main home for inclusive education, participation and citizenship, AI in society, youth and skills, and sustainability transitions.

The most direct match is TRANSFO-04, on digital tools, education and youth mental health. For teams thinking at the systems level, TRANSFO-02 addresses the social model, skills, productivity and adaptation to AI, climate and demographic change — ideal for scaling pilots beyond their first sites and positioning universities as living labs. Other Cluster 2 topics widen the choice, including global creative alliances that fund partners across the Global South, digital and media literacy, and competences for the green transition.

What the room leaves with

By the end of the hour, the group has three things to take forward:

• a proposal skeleton — the bones of a real bid
• new partnerships — the people to build it with
• a skills development plan — for each person and their organisation

That is collective action in miniature: shared care, integrated knowledge, and a concrete next step.

Why it matters

This approach tries to democratise research skills. It is open, transdisciplinary, and built for real, unequal contexts — not only for Europe. It measures success the way GSDC does: in partnerships formed and initiatives funded, with benefits that reach the global majority.

A sustainable future will not be designed by one discipline, one sector, or one country. It will be built by networks that care enough to act. That is the work GSDC 2026 invites — and the work this session begins.

Framework: CARE–KNOW–DO and the 8Cs (Dr Alexandra Okada). Developed with the METEOR project (EU n.101178320) and the CONNECT / upSkill.Map community, in support of the UN Sustainable Development Goals.

Fun in Designing TRIPS pathways
Transformative Research Innovation Proposals: a challenge of
METEOR Programme: Methodologies for Teamworking in Eco-Outwards Research

1. What: Eco‑outwards transformative research in METEOR

METEOR is a Horizon Europe programme that reimagines doctoral education as a driver of societal transformation by developing early‑career researchers’ transversal skills in teamwork, collaboration and project design across disciplines and countries. Eco‑outwards research is the guiding principle: research is expected to radiate outwards from the individual scholar to broader ecosystems of people, institutions and environments, so that project results create tangible benefits beyond academia.

Within this frame, an eco‑outwards Theory of Change (ToC) starts from the transformative impacts METEOR seeks – more equitable, sustainable and resilient societies for people and planet. ToC is developed through backwards mapping. First, we identify the desirable future, expressed as the relevant impact. Second, we work backwards to specify the outcomes, outputs, activities and inputs that would make that impact achievable. Third, the resulting ToC map becomes a shared planning tool: it helps partners negotiate who will lead which activities, based on interests and expertise, and supports the development of a realistic schedule (for example, a GANTT chart).

Proposals are invited to articulate how their teams will move along this chain, showing how researcher development, collaborative practices and institutional conditions combine to produce outward‑facing, sustainability‑aligned change..

2. Why: The need for eco‑outwards, engaging approaches

Doctoral training and early‑career research often emphasise individual excellence and publication metrics, while offering limited structured support for collaboration, societal engagement or mental wellbeing. At the same time, the challenges framed by the Sustainable Development Goals demand research that can navigate complexity, work across boundaries and co‑create solutions with diverse stakeholders.

Eco‑outwards proposals respond to this gap by positioning researchers as relational agents who connect knowledge domains, sectors and communities in order to generate positive social and environmental impact. By explicitly adopting a backwards‑mapped ToC, they demonstrate that impacts are not accidental by‑products but the result of deliberate design choices about how people will work together, learn from one another and translate insights into action.

3. Who: Actors in the eco‑outwards ecology

In METEOR, the primary actors are doctoral candidates and early‑career researchers, who are supported to become “eco‑outwards” in both mindset and practice—connected researchers, project coordinators and network leaders who can operate confidently in transdisciplinary and intersectoral teams. Around them sits a wider ecology: academic supervisors, institutional leaders, NGOs, community groups, businesses, public bodies and international partners who co‑shape research agendas and share responsibility for impact.

Eco‑outwards proposals narrate how these actors will relate to each other over time: how peer mentoring groups will function; how cross‑institutional teams will co‑design projects; and how external partners will be involved not only as data sources but as co‑researchers, co‑educators and co‑owners of the knowledge that is produced. This “who” is therefore less a static list of stakeholders and more a description of a living, evolving community of practice.

In practical terms, using an eco‑outwards ToC means that, once the impact and main outcome pathways are sketched, teams deliberately bring all sectors linked to that impact into the conversation from the start: citizens and communities, enterprises, NGOs, government bodies, education providers and research centres. In METEOR, the primary actors are doctoral candidates and early‑career researchers, who are supported to become “eco‑outwards” in both mindset and practice—connected researchers, project coordinators and network leaders who can operate confidently in transdisciplinary and intersectoral teams.

Around them sits a wider ecology of academic supervisors, institutional leaders, NGOs, community groups, businesses, public bodies and international partners who co‑shape research agendas and share responsibility for impact. When designing their ToC, project teams are encouraged to map how these actors will work together over time—how peer‑mentoring groups will function, how cross‑institutional teams will co‑design projects, and how external partners will be involved not only as data sources but as co‑researchers, co‑educators and co‑owners of the knowledge that is produced—so that the “who” becomes a living, evolving community of practice rather than a static stakeholder list.

4. When and How: CARE–KNOW–DO as the developmental spine

The when and how of eco‑outwards transformation in METEOR are organised around the CARE–KNOW–DO framework, which underpins the upSkill.Map competence instrument and the programme’s academies and online resources. CARE–KNOW–DO runs longitudinally through the METEOR journey: from initial online preparation and self‑assessment, through the in‑person academies, to subsequent proposal development and legacy activities.

• CARE is activated early, as participants reflect on their values, responsibilities and wellbeing in relation to global challenges and local contexts. Activities such as guided self‑assessment, narrative exercises and mentoring conversations help researchers recognise how issues of justice, equity and sustainability intersect with their own trajectories, laying the ethical and emotional foundations for collaboration and impact.

• KNOW becomes prominent as teams begin to explore knowledge ecologies: comparing disciplinary perspectives, integrating academic and practitioner insights, and engaging with open science and responsible research and innovation. Through seminars, peer‑learning tasks and collaborative inquiry, participants practise epistemic humility, learn to navigate uncertainty and build shared conceptual frameworks that are robust enough to inform serious proposals.

• DO crystallises during the academies and subsequent project development phases, where groups design and refine eco‑outwards research proposals aligned with the SDGs and Horizon Europe priorities. Here, engaging methodologies—interactive workshops, challenge‑based sprints, scenario design and co‑creation with external partners—enable researchers to translate CARE and KNOW into concrete plans, work packages and impact pathways that are both ambitious and feasible.

Because CARE–KNOW–DO is embedded across time, the ToC is not a one‑off planning tool but a living ecology: participants revisit and adjust their assumptions as their understanding of contexts, partners and opportunities deepens.

5. So what? Lessons learned for eco‑outwards proposals

Framed in this way, METEOR’s eco‑outwards approach offers several lessons for transformative proposals. First, starting from impact and backwards‑mapping the ToC helps teams to be explicit about whose lives they hope to change, in what ways, and through which mechanisms of knowledge exchange and capacity‑building. This avoids the common trap of designing attractive activities that are weakly connected to societal outcomes.

Second, centring CARE–KNOW–DO demonstrates that researcher development is itself a pathway to impact: as individuals and teams become more reflective, more critically informed and more capable of acting collectively, they increase the likelihood that their work will make a meaningful difference in the systems they inhabit. Proposals that show this developmental logic—how participants move from inner alignment (CARE) through shared understanding (KNOW) to collaborative intervention (DO)—are better positioned to convince reviewers that transformation is possible, not merely aspirational.

Third, eco‑outwards narratives help institutions and funders see how investments in transversal skills, teamworking and engaging pedagogies can leave a durable legacy in doctoral education and research culture, beyond the lifespan of individual projects. When proposals tell this story clearly—linking what they are doing, why it matters, who is involved, when and how CARE–KNOW–DO will shape the journey, and so what in terms of societal and ecological futures—they contribute to METEOR’s broader ambition: to normalise research that is outward‑looking, ethically grounded and transformative in practice as well as in rhetoric.

Notes and Glossary

The verbs that research proposals typically consider, in increasing order of strength:

• Informing — the research provided input; the adopter made the decision. Honest but understates a measured-outcome case.
• Shaping — the research influenced the form of what was adopted. Stronger than informing; defensible for partnership cases.
• Enabling — the research made possible what otherwise could not have happened. Strong for cases where the research provided the conceptual instrument that the adopter then used.
• Embedding — the research has been incorporated into ongoing practice. Strong for durability claims.
• Reframing — the research shifted how the field thinks. Strong for conceptual impact.
• Underpinning — the research forms the foundation of what was adopted. Strong but risky if the foundation has other contributors (Lemann, Natura, PARC architecture).
• Driving / Transforming — the research caused the change. Strongest but requires sole-attribution evidence you do not have.

By Dr Alexandra Okada

The Seed – Brazil, 2004

I remember the moment clearly. A nine-year-old in my class looked at the screen, folded his arms, and said: “Can I use something else? MicroWorlds is too hard.”

I was a teacher then  working across both private and public schools in São Paulo.  And that single sentence became a research question that has never quite left me. I was not using Microworld to show off my own coding. I was using it because I believed, with every instinct I had developed from reading Seymour Papert and Paulo Freire and working alongside José Armando Valente, that the learner who struggles with the tool is the learner who truly learns. The difficulty is not the obstacle. It is the curriculum.

Seymour Papert’s constructionism taught me that children learn best when they are making something shareable, something meaningful — not completing exercises designed by adults. Paulo Freire reminded me that education is never neutral: it either domesticates or liberates. And José Valente, whose work on Logo from MIT to Brazil  shaped a generation of teacher-researchers including me, gave us the practical language for what happens when a child cycles through description, execution, reflection, and debugging. These were not abstract theories to me. They were the air in my classrooms in Brazil.

So when that boy said Microworld was too difficult, I did not simplify the task. I made the reason to do it more compelling. We built a virtual museum of Mondrian’s paintings — together, collectively, in Logo — and by the end, those same children were saying: “I liked to build the museum with my colleagues, and when it was finished, it was nice to visit all the paintings.”

That is the moment this twenty-year journey began.

Remarkable People – The UK, 2014

After completing my PhD with Simon Buckingham Shum, I had the honour of meeting Mike Sharples, a renowned scholar in UK EdTech, whose early work on children writing poetry with Logo alongside three Edinburgh schoolboys  I deeply respect.  I see his work, and that of other scholars of computational thinking, as part of a long, continuous cycle: researchers and teachers across decades, continents, and technologies, all asking the same essential question — who holds the creative agency?

In Sharples’ 1978 project, he wrote the LOGO procedures himself and invited the boys to use them. That was already radical for its time, and what those boys learned about grammar and meaning through generating poetry was genuine and deep. But in my São Paulo classroom in 2004, my pupils wrote the code. The syntax was theirs. The bugs were theirs. The paintings — and the pride — were entirely theirs.

This is not a criticism of Sharples. It is a description of a cycle continuing. Beth Almeida, a renowned scholar on teachers education enhanced with technologies and e-curriculum  who influenced so many of us working in Brazil, understood this rhythm: each generation of teachers-researchers must push the agency one step further toward the learner. That is the direction of travel. That is what Freire called conscientização — critical consciousness developed through one’s own action in the world, not received from above.

The Horizon Expands: Europe-Brazil, 2024

By the time I was leading the CONNECT project — an EU Horizon 2020 initiative across the UK, Greece, Romania, Spain, and Brazil — the technology had transformed beyond anything I could have imagined sitting with those children in São Paulo. We were now working with over 1,500 teachers and 50,000 students. I was no longer the classroom teacher. I was the Scientific Coordinator, the PI, designing frameworks and cross-national methodologies.

And yet — look at what the students were doing:

Greek teenagers in underserved communities were coding image-recognition algorithms in Scratch to detect wildfires in drone photographs. Brazilian students were building AI-powered inquiry maps about drought and indigenous land rights, presenting their findings to their own communities in Portuguese. UK students were designing AI-assisted renewable energy campaigns, pitching to engineers. All of them applying CARE-KNOW-DO in their projects and using CARE-KNOW-DO to reflect and explain what was transformed in their journeys and how they as transformers changed in their world.

In every case, CARE–KNOW–DO was not just the path — it was the map each learner drew of their own path. Students used it to reflect on and articulate their own transformation: I began to care about this place and these people. I learned what an algorithm actually does and why its biases matter. I did something real with that knowledge — and I changed in the doing of it.

This matters because education systems have historically spoken at underserved communities rather than with them — treating them as objects of policy, not subjects of their own learning. Their knowledge, their languages, their contexts were ignored. CARE–KNOW–DO flips that. A Brazilian student presenting AI-mapped findings to her own community in Portuguese is not being spoken at. She is speaking with — and for — her world. That is the transformation. And it echoes Freire’s most fundamental insight: that liberation begins the moment a learner recognises themselves as the author, not the object, of their own story.

The teacher was not coding. The researcher was not coding. The learner was coding.

Twenty-one years. Different continent, different language, different technology, different scale. Same philosophy.

CARE–KNOW–DO: What Twenty Years of Living This Taught Me

The CARE–KNOW–DO model did not arrive fully formed from a literature review. It grew from lived experience — from classrooms, from conversations with colleagues and mentors, from watching what happens when young people are trusted with genuine tools, genuine problems, and “hard fun” (Papert’s phrase, which Kieron Sheehy’s work on inclusive playful learning has helped me think with).

CARE is what I saw in 2004 when a nine-year-old dedicated a Mondrian painting to his mother and published it on the internet.
And in 2025, emotional investment  including ethical connection to something beyond the self, with a teenager in Athens who begins to care about Mediterranean forests not as a lesson topic but as something fragile and worth protecting.

KNOW is what happens when you have to actually understand how Logo syntax works, how a machine learning algorithm classifies images, how AI can both help and harm — because you are building with it, not just reading about it.

DO is the moment a student in Manaus presents her AI-mapped analysis of Amazon drought to her community, or a student in Athens publishes code that detects deforestation. Likewise, UK students pitch for energy-saver funding using AI, and explain concepts and investment through AI. Not a simulation. Real action, in the real world, for real stakes.

These three dimensions align with UNESCO’s AI competencies — Understand, Apply, Create — but they are grounded in something deeper: the conviction that sustainable futures for people and planet require young people who are not merely literate about AI, but who are authors of it. Who CARE enough to use it ethically. Who KNOW enough to use it critically. Who DO enough to use it transformatively.

The Cycle Is Not Finished, May 6th  2026  00:30

Right now, as I write this, I am working on my next research bid, my next paper, supervising my next PhD students, designing my next course, and relearning with my son in hospital. The questions I am living with are the same ones that have always animated me, only sharper and more urgent: How do we ensure that generative AI in “lifeworthy” education — inspired by Perkins — empowers learners rather than replacing their agency? How do we build the kind of open schooling ecosystems that make AI literacy a matter of social justice, not just technical skill? How do we prepare this generation  and the next  to be citizens of an AI-mediated world, rather than its subjects?

I do not have all the answers. But I have learned where to look for them: in CARE-KNOW-DO, with the learners themselves.

A Note on This Blog Post — Authorship and Integrity

This post was drafted with Claude Sonnet 4.6 (Anthropic) as a writing assistant. However, its initial draft would not and could not exist in its form without: the lived experiences, research, and intellectual biography of Dr Alexandra Okada; her direct prompting and editorial direction throughout; her published articles including the 2004 EDMedia paper and the 2025 AIED/CONNECT journal article; and the vast body of her own content, reflections, and scholarly conversation that she brought to this process.

The ideas, the memories, the intellectual lineage I had the opportunity to encounter — Papert, Freire, Valente, Almeida, Buckingham Shum, Sharples, Sheehy, Perkins, and the thousands of students and teachers across Brazil, the UK, Greece, and beyond — belong to the author.

Claude Opus 4.7 (Anthropic) mediated the retelling. I, Dr Okada, authored this narrative (not generated, but lived), edited it, and published it in my own voice. AI-assisted writing is not AI-authored writing. Attribution matters.

References;

Okada, Alexandra (2004). Collaborative learning using Microworld and WebMapQuest. In: Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2004, Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), pp. 2695–2698.

Okada, Alexandra (2025). Playing the Whole Game: How Open Schooling with STEM and AI Empowers Students to Transform Lives and the Planet. Revista e-Curriculum, 23, article no. e73918.

Okada, Alexandra; Sherborne, Tony; Panselinas, Giorgos and Kolionis, Georgios (2025). Fostering Transversal Skills Through Open Schooling Supported by the CARE-KNOW-DO Pedagogical Model and the UNESCO AI Competencies Framework. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 35(4) pp. 1953–1998.

Sharples, M. (1978). Poetry from LOGO, Working Paper 30, Department of Artificial Intelligence, University of Edinburgh. DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.19158.87368.

Dr Alexandra Okada is an Assoc. Professor at The Open University, UK, Scientific Coordinator of the CONNECT-Science project (EU Horizon 2020), developer of the CARE–KNOW–DO pedagogical model, and lead of the Colearn Network, Brazil. 

By Dr Alexandra Okada, Researcher in Global Education, AI and Sustainable Futures, The Open University · UK  

A conversation with David Perkins at Harvard’s Project Zero reveals how the REACH framework — built on the mindsets of Explorer, Investigator and Innovator — offers a powerful new lens for designing learning that is passionate, purposeful and transformative.

“It’s not something you just do — like exploring. It’s something you are: an explorer adopting a certain mindset toward the world.” — David Perkins

During a visit to Harvard’s Project Zero, Dr Okada spoke with Professor Perkins about REACH — a framework built on three learning mindsets: Explorer, Investigator and Innovator. Perkins argues that too much schooling stops at “learn it and pass the test,” missing the passionate engagement that makes learning last. For Okada, this resonates beyond the classroom: in higher education, research projects are increasingly fuelled by funders’ agendas and ever more competitive grant cycles — creating a similar risk of losing the  passionate commitment for the lifeworthy transformation that research should lead. The conversation revealed striking alignments with the CARE–KNOW–DO framework at the heart of the METEOR project, and explored whether AI could help sustain these deeper models of learning and research impact at scale.

Introduction

What does it mean to truly understand something? Not just to recall it, but to act on it, connect it to the world, and keep asking questions? These are the questions that have driven the work of David Perkins and his colleagues at Project Zero, Harvard Graduate School of Education — and they feel more urgent than ever as we reimagine education for sustainable futures.

It was a privilege to visit Harvard and speak with David, whose decades of work on thinking, learning, and understanding have shaped education systems worldwide. At the heart of our discussion was a framework called REACH — and the profound idea that deeper learning needs not just skills, but mindsets.

What is REACH?

REACH ties thinking strategies to learning attitudes — what David calls mindsets: ways of engaging with the world framed not as activities, but as identities. There are three core personas:

The distinction between exploring and being an Explorer is subtle but deeply significant. Personas are more than verbs — they are ways of inhabiting a role, of bringing curiosity and passion to learning itself.

The problem with going through the motions

One of David’s sharpest observations was about the missing “passionate side” of thinking and learning. Too much schooling guides students toward one destination: learn it, pass the test, write the essay. The Innovator mindset in REACH pushes against this — asking learners what can be done with what they are learning, in their community, in their life, even now.

“One of the problems with a lot of schooling is that there’s nothing much you’re guided to do with what you’re learning — other than learn it and pass the test. The whole point of the innovator role is to encourage learners to think in terms of what can be done now, or nowish, or in my community.”

— David Perkins, Project Zero, Harvard

How REACH connects to CARE–KNOW–DO

Listening to David, I was struck by how deeply REACH resonates with the CARE–KNOW–DO framework (Okada & Gray, 2023) that underpins our work in the METEOR project and across UNESCO UNITWIN AI Unplugged.

Both frameworks share a conviction: that education must move learners beyond passive knowledge consumption toward active, values-driven engagement with the world. Together, they offer a powerful lens for designing learning experiences that are not only intellectually rigorous but genuinely transformative.

Can AI help sustain deeper learning?

David raised a question that resonates strongly with our METEOR work: could AI act as a practical scaffold — not a coach exactly, but a support system — that makes sustaining deeper models of learning more manageable at scale? Historically, technology has made things possible “a lot rather than only once in a while.”

Could AI do the same for pedagogical innovation?

This is not a solved question. But it is exactly the kind of intriguingly puzzling frontier David encourages us to pursue — resisting the obvious models that do not work, and asking: how else can the game be played? It is a question we are actively exploring through the METEOR project’s work on AI tools for mapping knowledge for sustainability.

Situating learners in a larger story

We also discussed intrinsic motivation — particularly for subjects that do not connect immediately to students’ daily lives. David’s insight was elegant: even abstract knowledge can have magnetism when it situates us in a larger story. Understanding dinosaurs, mammoths, deep time — these are not just facts. They are chapters in a story that includes us.

For those of us working at the intersection of education, AI, and sustainability, this feels like an invitation: to help learners see themselves as part of something bigger, and to design learning that makes that story visible.

A takeaway for the METEOR project

Visiting Project Zero reminded me why frameworks like CARE–KNOW–DO and models like REACH matter so deeply. They are not just tools — they are invitations to become something: a curious Explorer, a rigorous Investigator, a creative Innovator. As we continue mapping knowledge for sustainability with AI tools in METEOR, that shift from doing to being feels like one of the most important design challenges we face.

Thank you, David — for a conversation full of ideas, warmth, and the occasional story about coasting down a mountain road in Cape Town with the engine off. Sometimes you do need to turn off the engine for a while.

🎧 Further listening: Thinkability podcast

David Perkins and Shari Tishman host Thinkability — a podcast exploring thinking skills, learning dispositions, and education for understanding. New episodes are on the way. Search Thinkability wherever you listen to podcasts.

References

Okada, A., & Gray, S. (2023). CARE–KNOW–DO: A framework for responsible AI-mediated learning. Open Research Europe.

Perkins, D. (2014). Future Wise: Educating Our Children for a Changing World. Jossey-Bass.

Project Zero, Harvard Graduate School of Education: https://pz.harvard.edu

This post is part of the METEOR Project blog series on AI tools and knowledge mapping for sustainability. The METEOR project is funded by the European Commission under Horizon Europe.

In an increasingly serious world, fun often feels like a guilty pleasure. But what if it’s actually essential? And why are people often afraid to talk about it?

The essential nature of fun is something that OU RUMPUS researchers and Fullscope charities have known for some time. Yet we’ve both found that funders can be reluctant to support ‘fun’ work and research. So, we joined forces, via the FUNdamentals knowledge exchange project, to find out why.

Our research with charities and funders revealed that although fun is considered essential to supporting children and young people (particularly those experiencing challenging circumstances), there’s reluctance to openly discuss fun’s benefits professionally. Why is this? Should we be doing something about it? Are our young people suffering from a fun deficit?  Read and share our fun executive summary of The FUNdamentals to find out.

 What do you think? Is fun something you can live without? Do you agree with our ‘FUNdamental’ values?

We view fun as a human need, not a luxury.

Fun is integral to supporting children/young people. It is key to building relationships and trust, unlocking potential, enabling constructive risk-taking and learning. This is particularly true for those in challenging circumstances.

Without fun children/young people wouldn’t engage in activities. Therefore, we include fun / enjoyment in the work we do / fund, not just for children/young people but also the adults supporting them.

If you’re interested in talking about the issues raised in the report let us know. And, if you’re interested in how we went about the research read our methods and reflections section below.

Methods: (the geeky bit about what we did and how we did it).

The Research Interviews

Semi-structured interviews (SSIs) were conducted in person, and online with between one and three representatives of each participating organisation. Interview questions were the same with slight tweaks made to reflect charity / funder status. Each interview started by asking what ‘fun’ meant to the participant/s personally. This elicited some interesting responses and contributed to revealing that there appears to be a gap between the actual value of fun and how it’s valued within our society.

Recruitment of charity participants

Charities working with children and young people (CYP) were approached in the East of England and London using a snowball sampling method and included charities in the Fullscope Consortium, our research partners. We sought to represent a typical cross section of small, medium and larger charities. However, some interested smaller charities just didn’t have capacity. Sadly, capacity issues within hard-pressed charities are not unusual and something to be explored (in partnership) to ensure smaller charity voices are represented in research.

Something we didn’t anticipate was one interested small charity (focused on trauma support) that decided that (even though confidentiality was assured), it was too risky to participate in case their interest in fun was construed negatively by funders. This in itself was a finding: it was fascinating to hear that ‘fun’ is such a ‘taboo’ in the sector that you can be dammed by association. Ultimately, we spoke with two small, three medium, and four large charities.

Recruitment of funder participants

We reached out to a cross-section of funders representative of the CYP grant making sector. We also sought representation of different attitudes; identifying funders who may be considered early adopters, reluctant or neutral to the concept of fun in grantmaking. It was harder to secure interviews with funders than charities; many didn’t respond at all, some cited a lack of time, and some a lack of relevance to their priorities. Ultimately, we spoke with seven funders who support CYP work nationally, in London, or/and the East of England. All would probably be considered early adopters, or neutral to the concept of fun in grantmaking.

Children and Young People (CYP) Voice

We hoped that a small group of ‘young advisors’ from Fullscope’s Our Voices network, would offer their insights to ensure CYP voice was kept central. When initially discussing this Fullscope’s youth lead made an interesting point: No-one had ever consulted them on something like ‘fun’ before. CYP voice groups are usually asked about trauma, racism, mental health, etc. All of which are extremely important, but it can seem like CYP are being mined for the negative aspects of their experiences.

This was a really interesting observation. The issue of the commodification of CYP – as part of the process of helping them – was alluded to by several interviewees, both charities and funders. We’re hopeful that the co-produced funds centering CYP joy (mentioned in the report) will shine a light on how this problem can be addressed.

Data analysis

Data analysis was conducted using Reflexive Thematic Analysis (RFA). 60 initial codes were generated and eventually rationalised under six themes (which you can read in the report). An RFA approach encourages the researcher to engage critically with the data and reflect on their own responses, emotions and biases throughout the research process. Which leads me to….

Reflections on conducting this research

Speaking with charities and funders, writing up the research findings, and creating the report, I was conscious that some elements could feel judgmental. Particularly: the gap between how we value fun for ourselves vs others, our connections between the words fun and frivolity, qualifying things as ‘just fun’, and the almost subconscious bias we have of ‘beggars can’t be choosers’ when it comes to who is deserving of fun, and what that can look like.  I think it’s important to admit that I’m ‘guilty’ of having thought, said, felt or done these things. Some of which I knew prior to starting this research, and some of which became apparent as I was conducting it and reflecting on my own responses to the data.

For example, when talking with a charity who openly position themselves as ‘fun’, they mentioned their work with domestic violence survivors and I caught myself thinking ‘oh wow, they do so much more than just fun’. So, I effectively dismissed the value of fun itself compared to a more ‘serious topic, despite my long-held belief in its importance, and having incorporated it into my own (serious) work for decades.

Despite having experienced / seen the benefits of fun from various perspectives (as a CYP being supported myself, leading CYP programmes for a charity, devising and managing CYP funds, and working on CYP policy (with a small p)).

Despite actively educating myself on the value of fun and advocating for it to be taken seriously by others.

Despite ALL the above, this mental process still happened to me many times throughout the research, and on reflection many times in the past. I highlight this to underline how deeply seated the problem of how we value fun is. There’s no judgement intended. Just an intention to bring these issues to awareness so we can explore what to do with them.

And finally…

We hope you enjoy reading the report. If you do, please share with your networks, and anyone who could do with a little fun. I’ll leave you with the words of our outstanding charity partner and of the RUMPUS leads.

“Working with The Open University helped us articulate something we’ve always known instinctively that fun is fundamental to wellbeing and connection. This project validated our experiences and gave us language and evidence to champion fun as a serious and essential ingredient in creating positive change”. Eva Acs, Director, Fullscope

 “As Open University researchers we’ve often had experience of funding application feedback that is nervous about fun. Working with Fullscope has been a fantastic opportunity, opening doors to understanding attitudes (but also fears) about fun and finding positive routes through. This report points us forward to more fun and creative collaborations”. Mimi Tatlow-Golden, Professor of Interdisciplinary Studies of Childhood and Youth

Meeting Curt Newton at MIT: Where Jazz, Open Education, and Climate Action Converge

During my recent visit to MIT Open Learning, I had the privilege of engaging with Curt Newton, Director of MIT OpenCourseWare (OCW), along with Chris Rabe, Program Lead for Universal Climate, and Shira Segal, Collaborations and Engagement Manager at OCW. What emerged was a fascinating exploration of how open education, climate action, and creative engagement can transform how we learn and act on our planet’s most pressing challenges.

Curt Newton: A Unique Voice in Open Education

Image 1:  MIT Open learning team: Curt, Chris and Shira

Curt Newton leads MIT OpenCourseWare in supporting millions of global learners and educators every year with freely shared materials from over 2,500 MIT courses. He joined OCW in 2004, shortly after its launch, captivated by the promise of open education.

But Curt is far more than an open education leader. What makes his work particularly inspiring is his commitment to climate action alongside open learning. He became activated in climate change work through MIT’s 2014 community climate conversations process and helped launch and co-lead the MIT ClimateX program (2015-2018). He also serves on the steering team of 350 MA and is a trained Climate Reality Project Leader.

When Jazz Meets Climate Education

Here’s where Curt’s approach becomes truly extraordinary—he embodies the philosophy that learning should be joyful, creative, and deeply engaging. This aligns with our Rumpus approach to fun in education: making complex, urgent topics accessible through creativity, artistry, and playfulness.

Source: Yotube A Climate Meditation for Solo Drumset // Curt Newton @ MIT Chapel, April 17 2024.   ‘A improvised sonic meditation on climate change and the polycrisis of our times. What can the practices of slowing down, curiosity, and seeking resonance offer as we navigate this urgent moment?’

Curt’s unique approach combines his professional expertise with creative activism. His latest recording, “Waking Up!” with Eric Hofbauer’s Five Agents ensemble, is a jazz suite inspired by Greta Thunberg’s galvanizing 2019 “How dare you!” speech at the United Nations. He’s also performed “A Climate Meditation for Solo Drumset”—using music and artistic expression to engage people emotionally with climate issues in ways that data and policy papers alone cannot achieve.

This is the essence of fun as engagement: transforming serious, urgent topics like climate change into experiences that move, inspire, and energize people. When we make learning playful and creative—whether through jazz, interactive experiments, storytelling, or games—we don’t diminish the importance of the subject. Instead, we create deeper connections and synergistic impact.

A Rich Exchange of Ideas

During our meeting, several key insights emerged:

Curt Newton presented MIT’s extensive climate-related initiatives, including the Climate Portal and the ClimateX community, which provide open resources and foster global engagement on climate action. These platforms democratize access to climate knowledge while building communities of practice around the world. This is particularly relevant for the METEOR network of researchers across Europe, Latin America, and Africa.

Chris Rabe introduced the Universal Climate course, emphasizing its role in promoting climate literacy and justice through accessible, open educational materials—ensuring that climate education reaches beyond elite institutions. This is especially useful for our open schooling network CONNECT-science.net, focused on underserved students.

Shira Segal highlighted the mission of MIT OpenCourseWare to democratize education by providing free access to MIT’s course materials and discussed the upcoming OEGlobal Conference 2026, which MIT will host, focusing on open education and global collaboration. This was very useful for our next steps in expanding Open Learning with CatchUp Open Education.

Bridging Worlds: The METEOR Project and Indigenous Knowledge

I presented the METEOR EC-funded project, focusing on methodologies for teamworking in eco-outwards research and the development of transversal skills for researchers and doctoral students. Our research in the UK emphasizes participatory and community-based approaches, engaging local Indigenous communities alongside METEOR researchers from the Open University and the Federal University of Pará in the Amazon rainforest.

By integrating ethnographic accounts, community-based participatory research, open schooling, and AI-enabled tools, we explore how climate knowledge, culture, and resilience intersect. This work builds on our recently published article with UNESCO, which highlights the role of AI and open schooling in supporting sustainable education practices in the Amazon rainforest while respecting local cultural knowledge.

The conversation revealed powerful connections: just as Curt uses jazz to make climate education emotionally resonant, our work demonstrates how local cultural knowledge and creative expression are essential to meaningful climate action and artivism (art + activism). Both approaches reject the notion that education must be dry or detached—instead, they embrace the full spectrum of human experience, from artistic expression to community wisdom co-creation.

Fun, Creativity, and Serious Purpose

What struck me most about meeting Curt and the MIT Open Learning team was their embodiment of a crucial principle: you can be rigorous and playful at the same time. Curt’s work proves that open education isn’t just about access to information—it’s about making that information come alive in ways that spark curiosity, joy, and action.

Whether it’s through a jazz performance that channels climate urgency, a universally accessible climate course, or community-based research, the message is clear: if we want people to care deeply and act boldly on issues like sustainability, we need to engage not just their minds, but their hearts and imaginations too.

Looking Forward: OEGlobal 2026 and Beyond

The meeting provided a rich opportunity to discuss synergies between MIT’s climate initiatives, open educational resources, and our own work fostering inclusive, culturally grounded climate education. With MIT hosting the OEGlobal Conference 2026, there will be unprecedented opportunities to advance these collaborations and share what we’re learning with a global community of open education advocates.

It was inspiring to collaborate on open education initiatives that empower learners worldwide to address climate challenges through innovation, community engagement, and shared knowledge. And it was a powerful reminder that the most effective climate education combines scientific rigor with cultural sensitivity, technological innovation with artistic expression, and global reach with local wisdom.

The conversations at MIT were very insightful for Rumpus Group and Meteor Network. That’s what happens when jazz meets climate action. That’s what Curt Newton and OCW team including Hal Abelson are bringing to the world.

Hal Abelson is a founding director of Creative Commons and has been a strong advocate for open education and free sharing of knowledge. He played a key role in starting MIT’s OpenCourseWare program in 2002, which was one of the first large collections of teaching materials published under a Creative Commons license. Abelson has emphasized that Creative Commons provides the foundation for open sharing on the web, allowing people to legally reuse and remix content, which he views as transformative for education and knowledge dissemination. He has been actively involved in making educational resources and educational technology openly accessible, reflecting his commitment to democratizing access to knowledge and empowering learners worldwide.

🌍 Useful Links for Teachers, Researchers, and Practitioners

MIT Climate Education and Resources

• MIT Climate Courses – Explore MIT’s online courses on sustainability, energy, and climate.
  🔗 learn.mit.edu

• MIT Climate Portal – Central hub for research, news, and community engagement on climate change.
  🔗 climate.mit.edu/about

• Climate Explainers (MIT’s Climate FAQ) – Accessible explanations of key climate concepts.
  🔗 Climate Explainers

• CATE: Climate Action Through Education – K–12 curriculum, hands-on activities, and current research.
  🔗 cate.mit.edu

• MIT Climate Podcasts – Explore the science, technologies, and policies shaping climate action.
  🔗 Til Climate Podcast

Featured MIT Courses

• Climate in Classrooms: Tools for All Teachers and Disciplines
  Level: Introductory | Instructors: Christopher Knittel, Antje Danielson
  🔗 Course Link

• Cities and Climate Change: Mitigation and Adaptation
  Level: Introductory | Instructors: Janelle Knox Hayes, Juan Camilo Osorio, Cynthia Rosenzweig, Daniela Coray, Maria Dombrov, Kevin Hsu
  🔗 Course Link

• Transformative Living Labs in Urban Climate Action and Transportation Planning
  Level: Intermediate | Instructors: Christopher Knittel, Oliver Lah
  🔗 Course Link

Podcasts & Media

• 🎧 Episode: “Did Climate Change Do That?” (13:37)
  🔗 Listen here

• 🎥 MIT Campus Climate Action Speaker Series:
  What Can MIT Learn from Smith’s Geothermal Transition?
  🔗 Watch on YouTube

Open Climate Learning & Perspectives

• • Open Climate Learning Initiative – Promotes inclusive, locally adapted open climate education resources.
    🔗 cleanet.org presentation

• Perspective: Catalyzing Climate Education with Open Resources and Practices –
  By Curt Newton, MIT Open Learning / #GoOpen Network
  🔗 Read on Medium
  🔗 Also on MIT Open Learning

Community Engagement

• Campus Climate Action Ambassadors – MIT program engaging staff, students, and researchers in sustainability initiatives.
  🔗 Learn more

 RUMPUS INITIATIVES 

• METEOR  RESEARCHERS
  🔗 https://www.meteorhorizon.eu/
• CONNECT COMMUNITIES
  🔗  https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/rethinking-ai-research-ancestral-wisdom-future-generations

by Ale Okada