Week 6: Philosophical-21st Century Learning

Part I: Is the 21^st Century Movement the same thing as 21^st century learning?

I don’t think there is any question that changes in technology require changes in teaching. In the 20^th century some teachers might have ignored the influence of new technologies that led to such new mass media forms as movies, radio and TV, but they would have been as wrong as we would be to ignore the influence of the internet and other changes today. Many of these changes are also as much about mass media as technology.  

As educators, it makes sense to ask ourselves whether we believe changes are needed in how we educate our students, and if the answer is yes, how to adjust the way we teach our students. In my own mind I don’t think there is any question about the former, but I have many doubts about how to accomplish the latter. The Partnership for 21^st Century Skills (P21) believe they have the answer and many agree with what they say on their website. 

This week we were asked to read some articles by both critics and supporters of this organization’s prescriptions for change. I have delved into this before, and I have generally ended up with a feeling of “everything in moderation”. I am always wary of cure-all prescriptions, but I am also uncomfortable with the wholesale rejection of ideas. I am also leery of anecdotal evidence— either for or against. I don’t think it is difficult to find bad examples of implementation for any educational philosophy, and both sides have brought up their share. 

I agree with Professor Bigsby that, “Regardless of which movement you side with, the purpose of schooling has remained - preparing students with skills and knowledge.” I believe the debate is about both what best prepares students and what constitutes prepared. Until you decide on the what you can’t decide on the how.

I have already done some reading on this subject, and although there is plenty to ponder in the articles we were given, there are other’s I’d add, such as The Most Daring Education Reform of All by Diana Senechal, and New Jersey’s plan for implementation outlined in Creating 21st Century New Jersey Schools. 

I’m a fan of one of the “critics”, Daniel Willingham, having found his book Why Don’t Student’s Like School? (2009), to offer many insights into what makes for good learning. I was interested in what he sees as the flawed assumptions in the article Flawed Assumptions Undergird the Program at the Partnership for 21st-Century Skills. He is mostly critical not of the goals, but of their prescriptions for implementation. 

It’s not that the ideas are bad, but they clearly are not workable in the way that seems obvious: we want students to be able to do X in the world, so stick more X in the classroom. If it were that easy, it would have worked by now, because it has been tried many times before. That is the great danger of the P21 movement. To those unfamiliar with the history of education, the ideas sound compelling, and in fact, obvious. In the classroom, they are anything but.

Frankly, I don’t see any fundamental or idealogical differences that would prevent changes being made as new information and a better understanding of how people learn are incorporated. However, I don’t think this means we should accept the goals without agreeing on the methodology. Willingham criticizes what he sees as a lack of understanding of “how knowledge and skill work together.” In previous posts I have mentioned being bothered by what I see as a lack of appreciation for the importance of background knowledge to inform thinking, and I would be interested in whether there has been any modification in the thinking expressed by the advocates. I don’t see any reason why not, but I am often surprised when what I see as reasonable compromises are instead seen as basic idealogical differences. 

Willingham sees 3 mistaken assumptions: 

1. Knowledge and Skills are separate. “the 21st-century skills movement in general is too focused on skills (analysis, synthesis, critical thinking) and ignores the fact that knowledge is critical to thought”. 
2. Teachers don’t have cognitive limits. “The P21 group shows no recognition of the enormity of this problem, nor of the likelihood that teachers will end up not using these methods or having difficulty managing them.” 
3. Experience is equivalent to practice. “This means that 21st-century skills like ‘working well in groups,’ or ‘developing leadership’, will not be developed simply by putting people in groups or asking them to be leaders”. 

His conclusion is clear:

I believe [these 3 faulty assumptions] mean that states that adopt the recommendations of the P21 group will find they don’t work.

But are these really the P21 assumptions? I’m pretty sure that P21 would disagree.

I see as a weakness some aspects of the P21 coalition that other’s, I know, see as a strength. Much of the power is corporate or political. I don’t believe either of these groups have shown themselves to be good prognosticators of the future. I see education as being about preparing students for their lives as adults and citizens and not the preparation of workers to enter the workforce. It’s not that I think school should be so abstract that it doesn’t prepare students for their work future, but I do not believe this should be the primary (or even secondary) goal. I don’t think anyone really knows what the future will be. People should learn how to learn, and the duty of schools to corporations is to provide workers who are prepared to learn. As long as the P21 goals coincide with mine I’m all for it.

As you’d expect, I disagree with some of the conclusions of "The Workforce Readiness Report Card" from the Partnership for 21st Century Skills, The Conference Board, Corporate Voices for Working Families, and the Society for Human Resource Management. What is the schools role in preparing students to be future workers? Is “workforce readiness” the primary or even secondary role of K-12 education? How do you define ‘workplace readiness’? Employers can say what they wish new applicants knew, but can they know what will be needed in the future, or even what skills they take for granted that might be lost with wanton changes in the education system? 

My impression since my son entered school is that his education is much more rigorous than anything I experienced before college. More depth, more analysis, more group work. I’ve been pleased with this as, after I entered college, I found my own elementary education lacking. However, there were many in my college who obviously had been in better schools that prepared them better for college. I saw this as an indication of the weakness of my California educational, in general, and the two school districts I attended, in particular. The bottom line is that there have always been better and worse schools, and our goal should be to raise all schools up to as near the same high level as we can.

We can agree on many goals, such as fostering creative thinking and problem solving. However, what is the best way to do this? Children are frequently very creative. And, all too often, we do educate it out of them. However, they are almost never ‘usefully’ creative or innovative until they have learned what is possible. Being creative can include discovering things that are already known, but that you were never taught, but this doesn’t help someone be ‘usefully’ creative unless they learn enough to come up with ideas that have never been thought of before. What is needed to give students the tools they need to be creative and innovative? Is it just an exposure to opportunities? Is it just making sure they thoroughly understand what they are studying? I’d say it’s a combination of them all as well as creating an environment that both encourages this and shows what is needed, including background knowledge, to be creative.