Are they really "21st century" skills?
Thursday, March 5, 2009 at 06:12AM
In the Bridging Differences blog, Diane Ravitch writes:
... the movement for “21st Century skills” sounds similar—if not identical—to earlier movements over the past century. Its calls to teach critical thinking skills, creativity, problem-solving, and cooperative group skills are not at all “21st Century.” Certainly for the past generation, these goals have been virtual mantras in our schools of education. If there is anything that teachers have been taught over the years, it is the importance of pursuing these goals, which are certainly laudable in themselves.
Earlier manifestations of the movement to teach outcomes directly was referred to as “life adjustment education,” or “outcome-based education,” or most recently in the 1990s, “SCANS skills.” In every manifestation, the movement says that we should teach students how to think and teach them real-life skills but downplay academic subjects because students can always look up “bits of information.”
and adds...
Is it [the 21st Century Skills movement] an effort on the part of the technology companies to sell more high-tech hardware and software to schools? Is it an effort to throw a wrench into the effort to develop meaningful and reasonable academic standards by replacing them with vague and pleasing-sounding goals?
Read Ravich's column for a reality check. The blogosphere has rightly been called an echo-chamber of like-minded commentators who reinforce each other's beliefs with few other voices offering divergent opinions. (Tribes?)
So why, if "21st century skills" have been promoted for the past 30 years have they not risen to level of importance of the basic 3rs? Why is NCLB not demanding that schools unable to demonstrate that they are teaching critical thinking be placed on AYP?
I have always been skeptical that society or schools actually want students who are capable of critical thinking. Who are information literate. Who are genuinely creative. These scary people threaten the status quo and may lead a better class of legislators, CEOs, and school administrators. See "Why Robots Make the Best Students" and "The Illusion of Change."
I am also beginning to think that both ISTE, AASL, and other organizations who promote "21st Century skills" have done a disservice to students by their very ambition attempts to incorporate all the skills today's kids need in their documents. Rather than a modest list of well-defined and achievable skills written in a language the general education community and public can understand, we are now working with "vague and pleasing-sounding goals."
OK, call me a geezer, but I still like "research skills" and "computer skills." I suspect teachers who encourage creativity, expect higher-level thinking skills, collaboration, and all these fuzzy "dispositions" will do so even if they aren't spelled out in standards - or continue to ignore them if they are is so inclined.
Reader Comments (12)
Thank you!
I've been thinking along these lines but had yet to verbalize it so succinctly. Quit with the buzzwords and look at just plain old solid good teaching. Authentic engagement, inquiry, whatever you want to call it. The tools change, but the real skills of questioning and problem solving and thinking critically never do. Many of these "21st C skills" or "NetGen" folks make it sound like before they had laptops and IWBs and LCD projectors that ALL teachers were droning at the front of the room and students were doing worksheets. Well some teachers that have all that stuff still are teaching that way and some never did and never will.
When I was in 4th grade our teacher took us out behind the building every day and we took a big pile of wood, learned to use some tools and spent a few weeks making our own go cart. We designed it, painted it, put it together and finally took turns pushing each other down a hill. I learned more about teamwork, collaboration, measurement, design, and physics than most 4th graders I know.
And it was nowhere near the 21st Century.
My friend speaks to my condition! (as we Quakers say)
This is definitely one of the problems I have with promoting the new AASL Standards: the language is sooo jargon-laced that it distances any like-minded faculty from participating. There are broad, sweeping statements that sound very lofty but ultimately just dress up our practice (sheep dressed as mutton?!). As we have moved from being librarians to being library media specialists, from working in libraries to working in library media centers, and from teaching library (or research) skills to integrating 2.0 tools, we've lost sight of what we are and what we do: use the best available methods to teach students so that they can succeed academically and in life.
I'm also leery of anything that makes people who are already doing these things, perhaps not with the most recent tools or in the most recent language, feel as though they're somehow lacking in their practice.
The reason is this is a civil rights issue. School systems operate much in the same way they always have because those who were successful in those systems rise to control them. The same is true of policy makers who draft policy that shapes the direction and parameters of public education. I wrote about this last week and rather than reitterate my whole argument I will just link to it: How is Education a Civil Rights Issue
Oops, the blockquote did not show up. I meant to have this quote from your post as the lead into my comment:
"So why, if "21st century skills" have been promoted for the past 30 years have they not risen to level of importance of the basic 3rs? Why is NCLB not demanding that schools unable to demonstrate that they are teaching critical thinking be placed on AYP?"
I have been thinking a lot about the new AASL standards, so it was interesting to read these posts about them. I guess the "21st century" part comes in because there is a climate of low-grade terror in this country that that phrase speaks to. This is the creeping fear of so many that in the U.S. we, our culture, and the next generation will be eclipsed by such Asian giants as China, Korea, and Japan. One frequently hears about the need to compete internationally since so many so-called under-developed countries are now stepping up their professional game; often this is verbalized in a tone of dread. Hence the need to met the challenge with all the thinking and tech skills possible. However, I agree with some of the posts that critical thinking and rigorous research have always been a good thing. The poor state of many of our schools is a direct result of neglecting a lot of these goals, and NCLB has obviously not fixed this. Nonetheless, I think there is value in putting those skills on the table in a formal document, a manifesto really, and sending a message to both the mediocre and the high-performing School Library Media Specialists, politicians, school administrators, content teachers, people who hold the purse strings of budgets, and parents. It also helps legitimize our profession to those who might say, "You need a master's degree to check out books?" Perhaps it is a way to articulate what exactly it is that we do in an era when our jobs are threatened and so many school librarians are being laid off, when really we are one of the absolutely most crucial positions in the educational picture.
Like Lazy Gal--I fear too that this will cause a doggone digital divide like no other. And that divide includes not only the skilled and skilled not (students and educators alike) but also the filtered and the filtered-not.
@ Doug
The idea of placing schools on the warning list for failing to meet AYP for critical thinking is a frightful notion. Looks like we would be restructuring 95% of the high schools out there. Gary Stager at educon in Philadelphia made a statement that has stuck with me. He said, "Why not let all the worksheet teachers teach in the worksheet school and let parents choose." If we started defining our schools by the instructional philosophies we hold I wonder what shift it would bring?
Hi Ninja,
I think Dewey and Piaget were advocating some of these same things as well. I still think we are afraid of creating independent and creative people!
All the best,
Doug
HI Lazy,
Anything I can’t easily explain to a parent makes me anxious. And yes, today’s tres chic tools will be the gophers and CD-ROMs of tomorrow.
Thanks for the comment,
Doug
Hi Carl,
I enjoyed your post. Thanks for the link.
While “class” mobility is often give as one of the prime reasons for public education, I think it too often works to prevent class mobility as well. Schools for the governors and schools for the governed, as Kozol would say.
Thanks again for sharing your thoughts,
Doug
Hi Heather,
And what really gives our culture the willies, is that these developing nations are now taking many of our former white collar jobs. (Nobody much cared when the blue collar jobs were outsources.) Very interesting observation. Thanks!
Doug
Hi Cathy,
In terms of civic engagement, we are already denying kids who work in filtered schools and without home access the ability to be politically knowledgeable and engaged. Maximum access is a moral fight!
Doug
Hi Charlie,
In our neck of the woods, charter schools are supposed to be philosophy-driven, and to a large extent are. Yet, few parents choose to send their children to them. Parents only want change in the abstract for education – not in their own kids’ schools.
All the best,
Doug
The new AASL standards have such a skimpy theoretical basis for justifying the standards as adequate to address our approach to the vast changes in information.
The wording is value laden and skewed to support the skills workers will need in the global economy. they want our kids to be global citizens because the world is interdependent but they also need our kids develop their empathy communication skills so we can maintain our global dominance?
The guidelines state that the "learning environment must change to support the 21st century learner" These are some of the sources cited as evidence for the why the learning environment must change..
Daniel Pink's A whole new mind? Interesting, quick read but superficial, and entirelywithout merit as a national education strategy. He suggests we dump the focus on math/facts/linear logic and focus on developing six Right brain apptitudes he has declared essential. Essential so we can maintain our competetive edge in the global market. Parents who encourage their kids to be accountants need to wake up and smell the coffee. Please. who is this guy? he was al gore's speech writer for two years. He thinks education was better back when everyone learned at home from their parents or from a tutor.
Tapscott'sWikinomics How mass collaboration changes everything. Another lens used in the creation of the AASL standards is a book that claims mass collaboration changes EVERYTHING? Of course the author is a strategy consultant for business.The New Paradigm. Again, somewhat interesting but superficial ,lacking in perspective and scholarship.
Groundswell: winning in a world transformed by social technologies. Written by two tech Industry analysts. Haven't read the book, don't know much about it, but the title didn't comfort me. Winning? in the business of winning what?
We should not be looking at the applications of technology to develop our understandings of the essential elements here.
WE need to come to terms with the implications not applications! And our professional understanding is so weak, there wasn't one piece of research cited in the first chapter except for material from the Partnership for 21st Century Learning.
It's embarassing but also disappointing. What sort of authority or respect can we possibly derive with this sort of approach? We haven't done our homework. We haven't selected the best possible sources to address our information need. Is it really a mystery why the broader community basically ignores us? Creating high expectations is pointless if they don't address the fundamental issue. IAASL needs to come up with a firmer foundation than P21 and a few NYT times bestsellers. Sorry, not buying it. doing my own thing.
Hi Cheryl,
Now that you've told us all the things you don't like, I hope you tell us what we should be doing. What will "your own thing" look like?
All the best,
Doug
Hi Doug, thanks for asking, this is the plan. I'm out of step, I know but just the same wanted to reply. Your blog question today spoke to jobs on the line? Part of the problem is who tells us what our value is, who we listen to and why.
This response reflects my realization that it's time to start defining it for myself and that process starts by doing my own inquiry into the problem.
My/our school goal is to ensure each student knows the way in and their way around each of the following information systems: the book catalog/books, subscription databases/serials, the internet, and the news
Our library’s mission is to provide students, staff, and stakeholders, equitable access to information and ideas in support of the educational requirements of an informed 21st Century democracy.
The standards are not firmly established but below is a reasonable approximation:
• Students are able to access the different information systems used to disseminate information and ideas and use search strategies that leverage the strengths and limitations of each system.
1
• Students can articulate the level of credibility for a source using an objective criteria appropriate for their age and skills.
• Students recognize how data, information, knowledge, ideas, and opinions are related, and the influence framing has on our judgment and understanding.
• Students acknowledge the value of source attribution to our society and in their construction of new knowledge by citing their sources appropriately.
That’s the general plan. The grade-level break down is the present challenge and I’ve not yet had the time to pull it all apart. I am toying with the idea of teaching with a systems approach: parts, connections, relationships, influence. Lots more to think about and decide.
What I really need are IL standards that can be realistically achieved by the majority of my students, starting now, given the inequity of the SLMS collaboration model, the inadequate, inconsistent funding, and the pervasive NCLB-effect, all factors that name the instructional tune whether we hear it or not. My students don’t have a few years for it to gel. They’ve already been waiting a few years.
I don’t think my school situation/perspective are so unique when I suggest that this is not a great climate to insist on an optimization strategy and 100% buy in approach to IL. If I insisted our school could increase achievement if we hire all students a private tutor you’d think that was not such a swift plan. But how does a plan that requires a private tutor as a condition for success differ from 60 pages of skills, dispositions, responsibilities, and self-assessment strategies that outline in excruciating detail indicators for the standards that must be translated into the teaching and learning that happens every day in the library and classrooms of the school in order to have a positive affect on achievement, any different? (AASL Standards, p.62)
In terms of either proposal being of use to my school as a strategy that will improve my IL program this year, their relative value is exactly the same. Zero.
But even if every obstacle were removed I am still not so sure about this brave new AASL information world that’s being suggested here. Our traditional SLMC role, as I understand it, is to support the educational environment, not create it. If the success of our program depends upon 100% school buy-in, shouldn’t we be a bit more collaborative when making these decisions? Especially since the new standards will guide the outcome measures that will in turn, be used to measure us?
And why are these new IL standards an ideal instead of a norm. Our trade books do not routinely cite their sources. Most certainly our textbooks do not. Not even our teachers, administrators, government officials or policy makers use rudimentary IL skills when mandated by law (see below)!! And it appears these IL standards are so challenging, even AASL struggles to apply them. I’ve already gone off about the fluffy, biased sources listed in Empowering Learners as suggested reading for deepening our understanding of the SLMP vision. But quite to my surprise, I looked up one other source, and there is another error, this one in the AASL Standards for the 21st Century learners. On page 40, there is a statement that is attributed to Claxton, 2007, but Claxton did not make the statement. Claxton included the statement as a quote from David Miliband, in support of this statement
There is a widespread belief that being an effective, powerful real-life learner is a useful thing to be; and that 21st-century education should be aiming to help young people develop this generic capacity to learn.
Compared to the rhetoric and the good intentions, however, practical progress has so far been frankly disappointing.
I believe David Miliband, who is a school standards minister in England, made his statement during a speech to the Centenary North of England Education Conference in 2003. Below is a fuller excerpt of David Miliband’s exact wording:
For young Britons in the 21st century teaching needs to serve three functions: the transmission of knowledge for a world built on information, the broadening of horizons in a country still scarred by disadvantage, and learning how to learn in preparation for a lifetime of change.
http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/pns/DisplayPN.cgi?pn_id=2003_0002
The misuse of attribution in this case did suggest evidence for an argument that really doesn’t hold up.
Thank you for entertaining my views on your forum. For practical reasons related to job security, I can’t publically state my strong opinions without risking unpleasant ramifications from an administration sensitive to public perception that is crumbling under the pressure of standardized test-competition.
Below are notes for an article I’m preparing, from Patrick Wilson’s Second-hand knowledge, 1983Cognitive authority is a kind of influence, primarily the influence to change or guide someone’s thinking on a matter. The power of a cognitive authority to influence is granted, not claimed, so it requires a relationship of sorts, of one who claims to know and another that finds the claim credible and accepts the authorities knowledge as truth. People, groups, organizations and institutions all have cognitive authorities. For example, Library Science, many would agree, is an institutional authority on all matters pertaining to library administration. On matters of the book industry Library Science would not be considered an authority but their involvement with the industry, as institutional book selectors, might render their knowledge a valued opinion.
According to Patrick Wilson, institutional authority is essentially the measure of an organizations ability to “settle the question,” whatever that question may be. For example, few would argue with the cognitive authority of science and its laws of motion and that answer is considered sufficient to settle the question. The same sort of authority has not been unanimously given regarding climate change because many scientists do not agree that they know enough to “settle the question”. Until then, their claim to authority is limited which diminishes their influence and the acceptance of their ideas as conclusive.
Several factors influence the degree to which an organization will be considered authoritative on the matter in question.
Several factors influence the degree to which an organization will be considered authoritative on the matter in question.
These include
Exclusive jurisdiction
Verifiability
Application or effect
Internal consensus
Jurisdiction is akin to the knowledge or power territory claimed by the organization. In higher education, where knowledge is generated for the professions to incorporate into practice or products, jurisdiction is established by either studying areas others can’t study, due to some exclusive knowledge or technique the group has mastery of, or by studying subjects others don’t study. Inherent to claiming jurisdiction over any subject is assuming the responsibility to study the domain fully and deeply to ensure the theoretical framework that drives the organizations professional “stance” addresses the important, essential aspects of the subject matter being claimed.
Patrick Wilson, Second-hand knowledge.
Thanks, Doug, for providing this forum.
Forthcoming as: Coburn, C. E., Honig, M. I., & Stein, M. K. (in press). What is the evidence on districts’ use of evidence? In J. Bransford, L. Gomez, D. Lam, & N. Vye (Eds.) Research and practice: Towards a reconciliation. Cambridge: Harvard Educational Press.
http://gse.berkeley.edu/faculty/CECoburn/coburnhonigsteinfinal.pdf
Tseng, V. (with Granger, R.C., Seidman, E., Maynard, R.A., Weisner, T.S.,
& Wilcox, B.L.). (2008). Studying the use of research evidence in policy
and practice. In Supporting research to improve the lives of young people:
William T. Grant Foundation 2007 annual report (pp. 12–19). New York,
NY: William T. Grant Foundation. Retrieved June 18, 2009, from www.
wtgrantfoundation.org/usr_doc/Studying_the_Use_of_Research_
Evidence. Pdf
Fusarelli, L.D. (2008). Flying (partially) blind: School leaders’ use of research
in decisionmaking. In F. Hess (Ed.), When research matters: How
scholarship influences education policy (pp. 177–196). Cambridge, MA:
Harvard Education Press.
Hi Cheryl,
You've obviously given this a lot of thought and I believe you speak for many, many librarians working in the field.
Any interest in putting these ideas into an guest post for the Blue Skunk. Your post could be anonymous or credited as you chose? Email me if you are interested.
Thanks!
Doug