Expanding on the notion ESD starts out from the critical individual learner in search for (future) meaning, the OPEDUCA instruments further explicate the students’ ownership of the process and the interrogative ‘What, Where, Why, Who and How?’. What students work into their learning comes from experiences in the entire realm of their lives, considering the personal disposition as starting point, then enriched by observations and experiences in the real world.
Looking at a Field of Knowledge from a bird’s eye, the students observe a landscape of elements and interrelations, overview a theme and consequently ‘dive into the matter’, like a bird’s flight over a landscape of phenomena with landing spots and roads (relations) between them. A landscape allowing for a continuous search and discovery of earth and society in their entire appearance. Expanding on this analogy, students are in control in terms of routes, distance, heading and altitude, the choice of ‘landing spots’ to collect and leave data behind, keep hold of educational sources and Partners in Education. A visualisation intended to complement their understanding of a students’ ownership of the learning process, accentuate their freedom to learn (‘to go where the learning takes you’) and deliver the sensation of ‘collecting’, underlying constructivist learning. 

The personal learning proposed is literally and quintessentially constructivist but does not call for a divide between (internal) construction and (external) instruction. The collecting, experiencing and interpreting student is supported by way of alternative critical interpretations of findings, concepts and the placement of facts, inviting teachers for clarification. The student cannot ‘be told’, the opportunity to repeatedly re-sort, re-merge and re-constitute data and information collected is essential to learning, a process intrinsic to the person and relevant for the emerge of metacognitive capacity.
The natural inclination to provide youngsters with answers, facilitate and guide can be argued as the sole essence of education, to be distinguished from ‘schooling’ (3.3). The process of educating provides guidance, furthers insights, points out possible but does not command directions. As the learning is underway, steering follows to stay on route, correct or change direction; a continuous process for which the student draws on im- and explicit input and guidance.

These considerations are also based on the understanding that our working memory has limited (intake-)capacity (G. Miller, 1994) and should be used effectively. Once ‘input’ is processed and stored in long term memory it can be used ‘forever’ and in ‘infinite’ amounts, but if not there has been no learning. The structured storage-function of the Fields of Knowledge follows from this conviction; the varied, initially short-focused collection process characterised by ways of multiple experiences and (brief) associations.
The (implicit) repetition of elements in Flight for Knowledge (multiple storage and retrieval of the same or comparable data, subject-elements and concepts as they also appear over again in other themes) is congruent with what is known about the working of our memory as the cumulative-strength hypothesis (Murdock, 1982; Ward, 1893). Flight for Knowledge generates rich opportunity to develop a multitude of multiple traces (Bower, 1967; Logan, 1988), assuming that massed repetitions strengthen a single trace, whereas spaced repetitions may produce multiple traces (Gillund & Shiffrin, 1984).
Obviously, Flight for Knowledge also (implicitly) builds on the idea of dual coding as it sees to parallel verbal and non-verbal aspects of processing input (Paivio, 1969), contributing to more effective memorisation. Furthermore, the real-life learning elements are proposed to give way to continuous associations and references between what is lived, experienced and conceptualised while also allowing for more concrete observations (Paivio, 2013). 

Having introduced transdisciplinarity as natural to ESD, the OPEDUCA instruments give way and call for transdisciplinary learning. Present disciplines and school subjects are although not prematurely disqualified as old-school utilities representing outdated knowledge (that cannot exist in principle). The argument contemporary curriculums no longer hold since all develops and changes rapidly while the future has become most uncertain, I counterpose with the notion that this is exactly why mastering the existing body of content and concepts becomes even more useful.
Not knowing what the future brings does not imply students do not need to know anymore. Especially in the light of sustainable development, students should be facilitated and enabled to close a possible content gap (De Graaf & Kolmos, 2003).

The effectuation of learning on future defining themes invokes a decomposition of disciplines and consequently subjects to reach the transdisciplinary level.
Subjects are ‘broken apart’, de-composed into topics, elements and objects as they are placed in context by the students. A process enabling contextualization, integrative learning and a deeper understanding of matters. Each element of every (school-)subject is eventually (re-)placed following a more logical, contextualized and transdisciplinary perspective. This way also more recent and further-going scientific insights and phenomena can be worked in, placed.
Compared to traditional education, the pre-programmed sequential process of lesson plans, following textbooks and methods, is exchanged for inquiry-, problem- and community-based learning. Therewith the moment a student touches on curriculum-elements wil differ and be less foreseeable. Elements studied, covered and assessed are kept note of at the individual students’ level and consequently ‘ticked off’ repeatedly as various aspects are likely to appear frequently. The sum of the various Fields of Knowledge, BusinessClass and Global is seen to eventually cover the curriculum in content and intention. So long as the present system is in place, the prevailing curriculum is therewith respected as a prescribed list of contents, concepts and competences, yet approached as mandatory minimum;
it no longer has a prescriptive, restrictive, steering and directive quality.  

When speaking of ‘Knowledge’ in the framework of the OPEDUCA Concept, it comes close to the definition that knowledge is assimilated information and understanding of how to use it (Hess & Ostrom, 2005), a high-value form of information applicable to decisions and actions, knowledge derived from information as information is derived from data (Davenport & Prusak, 1998). Knowledge creation is seen as the transformation of concrete experiences, followed by reflection, abstract conceptualization and active experimentation (Kolb, 1984). Thereto the knowledge-creating process in OPEDUCA constitutes the notion of:
- data (facts that can be looked up and taught),
- information (the useful combination of facts underpinning ‘knowing’),
- knowing (the application of information to understand phenomena, concepts),
- knowledge (the application of ‘knowing’ to address a problem, making informed decisions),
- wisdom (the valuable application of knowledge).

This ‘hierarchy’ intends to offer a basic framework for a student to better understand, incorporate and evaluate the quality of observations, enhance a critical notion of what is dealt with. The OPEDUCA instruments intend to enable students to study wisdom to guide one’s ideas, opinions and actions. Following, this basic framework requires being aware of facts, the ability to interrelate those and built information, combining such to generate knowing whereafter the just and skillful application of such knowing defines knowledge. Deciding how to use knowledge is
a matter of wisdom, which underly values. As without values the application of knowledge turns awry, it is essential the student herself gains a profound understanding of the Dimensions of Sustainable Development which intend to provide leitmotiv. Such in turn serves the essence of own discovery, her notion and interpretation of values. Values can therefore never be commanded as they result from the learning, are not a commodity to be infused up front - the learner must undergo the (e-)motion. Relating this to a person’s balance, I refer to Schumacher who wrote: “Unless that person has sorted out and coordinated his manifold urges, impulses, and desires, his strivings are likely to be confused, contradictory, self-defeating, and highly destructive. The ‘centre,’ obviously, is the place where he has to create for himself an orderly system of ideas about himself and the world, which can regulate the direction of his various strivings.”

I gather knowledge development a process taking place in the mind, its fruits not transferable, not to be taught, let alone be looked up on the internet or elsewhere. Relating this to ‘contextual knowledge’ and terms alike, I argue context can direct (another, wiser) application of knowledge, but it is not the context that defines what knowledge is.

The data, information and concepts collected in a Field of Knowledge are proposed to be self-validating, validity assumed to be a function of:
- the authenticity of sources used, including the degree in which a student seeks and finds qualitative second (expert-)opinion with Educators (normative analyses),
- the quality of the peer-to-peer exchanges that include self-reflection, specifically when findings and argumentations differ (comparative analyses),
- the teachers’ informed interventions, possible through continuous access to each Field of Knowledge,
- the ‘cleansing’ function of the presentations that holds an essential place through checks and balances,
- 3rd party access to content and concepts.

A Field of Knowledge does not hold valid data and information from the start, it is a function of the instrument to have students constantly challenge and correct their findings. They are assumed to practice and expand their critical thinking skills as they gradually built their metacognitive capacity, supported by the break-down and
re-trace of their learning process (4th dimension of Flight for Knowledge). Teachers and Educators initially do not fill gaps or correct, but allow for errors and defaults,
a practice I regard crucial for students’ self-dependence and their development from pupil to student.