As we consider the future, it is clear that it will be very different to what we have experienced. The previous page consider a number of innovations which, although they have the potential to transform education, have so far amounted to interesting ideas with mostly localized impact.
The '21st Century' movement in education is actively seeking to reform K-12 education in its entirety, and appears to be making significant inroads in the US and Canada, with a number of states and provinces revising curricula based upon 21st century principles.
This page examines the key ideas in this movement, beginning where all reforms begin: why we need a change.
The '21st Century' movement in education is actively seeking to reform K-12 education in its entirety, and appears to be making significant inroads in the US and Canada, with a number of states and provinces revising curricula based upon 21st century principles.
This page examines the key ideas in this movement, beginning where all reforms begin: why we need a change.
Justification for change
Publications by 21st century organizations tend to provide a 'sound-bite' summary of reasons for reforming education. The US-based Partnership for 21st Century Learning website states that "a profound gap exists between the knowledge and skills most students learn in school and the knowledge and skills they need for success in their communities and workplaces". Canadians for 21st Learning & Innovation (C21) claims that "new realities demand people with different competencies than those considered appropriate for success in the agrarian and industrial era" (C21 website).
Dede (2010) describes in more detail how traditional skills have changed, and outlines new skills needed for the 21st century. He argues that the nature of work has been changed by technology: fewer people are working in jobs requiring routine, repetitive thinking and actions, as these can now be better performed by technology. Instead, humans are required to do the kind of thinking needed when systems don't work - in short, innovative problem-solving. He argues that pre-existing ('perennial') skills such as collaboration are changing in nature; while collaboration has long been a valuable skill, it has become more important in a knowledge-based economy, and it involves working with people around the world, rather than only face to face. In addition, new 'contextual' skills are required, including informational skills (finding information, evaluating sources, co-creating knowledge, and sharing knowledge).
Source: http://www.cea-ace.ca/sites/cea-ace.ca/files/cea-2011-wdydist-infographic.pdf
Dede (2010) describes in more detail how traditional skills have changed, and outlines new skills needed for the 21st century. He argues that the nature of work has been changed by technology: fewer people are working in jobs requiring routine, repetitive thinking and actions, as these can now be better performed by technology. Instead, humans are required to do the kind of thinking needed when systems don't work - in short, innovative problem-solving. He argues that pre-existing ('perennial') skills such as collaboration are changing in nature; while collaboration has long been a valuable skill, it has become more important in a knowledge-based economy, and it involves working with people around the world, rather than only face to face. In addition, new 'contextual' skills are required, including informational skills (finding information, evaluating sources, co-creating knowledge, and sharing knowledge).
Another reason for change is the need to increase student engagement in learning. “Studies confirm a crisis of disengagement of learners from traditional learning and teaching models” (C21, 2012:4).
The graphic (right) illustrates the results of a 2011 Canadian Education Association survey of over 67,000 Grade 5-12 Canadian students. The researchers asked students about engagement, participation, a sense of belonging and attendance. The survey results indicate worryingly low levels of engagement from grades 8-12, and a general downwards trend as students get older.
Click on the graphic to view the full document on the CEA website.
The graphic (right) illustrates the results of a 2011 Canadian Education Association survey of over 67,000 Grade 5-12 Canadian students. The researchers asked students about engagement, participation, a sense of belonging and attendance. The survey results indicate worryingly low levels of engagement from grades 8-12, and a general downwards trend as students get older.
Click on the graphic to view the full document on the CEA website.
The overarching motivator for such a large-scale transformation of education is the future success of today's students. "Multi-literate, creative and innovative people are now seen as the drivers of the 21st Century and the prerequisites to economic success, social progress and personal empowerment” (C21, 2012:4). “Every child in America needs to be ready for today’s and tomorrow’s world... to successfully face rigorous higher education coursework, career challenges and a globally competitive workforce” (P21 FAQ page).
|
Sidebar: corporate education?Market interests in education have an influential role in 21st Century think-tanks. For example, 11 out of 15 members of the Board of Canadians for 21st Learning & Innovation hold positions in companies like Dell, Microsoft, Pearson and Nelson (C21 website). Perhaps this reflects a sad reality that private funding is needed to reform public education, but it still raises concerns as the extent and direction of corporate influence on education.
|
21st century curriculum
In response to this perceived need, educational think-tanks, including P21 and C21, have developed frameworks for a 21st century curriculum, focusing on skills, supported by technology. The Partnership for 21st Century Learning's Framework for 21st Century Skills has become something of a benchmark in this educational movement. The following artifact from Technology and the Curriculum is a description of the Partnership's Framework.
Comparing frameworks
21st century frameworks from around the world are "generally consistent with each other" (Dede, 2010:11). Dede's comparison includes frameworks from P21, the
Metiri Group and NCREL, AACU, OECD, ISTE, and ETS, as well as frameworks proposed by Dede and Jenkins et al, all from the last 10 years. Dede notes slight differences in emphasis, or in focus (for example, the ISTE framework has a greater focus on technology). C21's Shifting Minds is an intentionally Canadian version of the P21's Framework. In keeping with Dede's findings, Shifting Minds shares a great deal with P21's Framework; C21's seven 'Competencies' cover the same concepts as the 21st Century Skills and Themes above. One slightly disturbing difference is C21's narrow core content focus: English, Math and Science are repeatedly mentioned as the focus of instruction, with no reference to the Humanities (History/Geography) or the Arts.
Response to the 21st century movement
When I first encountered this movement, I was skeptical: could a change on this large a scale really work? Would this simply be current practice dressed up in rhetoric? Was this yet another grand reform scheme that would eventually lose steam and pass us by? As I examined the P21 documents while preparing the above summary, however, I was more and more impressed. It was particularly helpful to examine the Subject Maps, which gave me a real feel for how the ideals of the Partnership would be implemented in the classroom.
Positives
The teaching approach and content as presented in the Subject Maps are excellent, supporting meaningful, rich learning experiences. The curriculum is:
Positives
The teaching approach and content as presented in the Subject Maps are excellent, supporting meaningful, rich learning experiences. The curriculum is:
- Inquiry-Based. Many of the sample projects involve student-driven exploration of the content, with open-ended questions, and a focus on the process as well as the product.
- Collaborative. Many of the projects involve collaboration with peers and others.
- Engaging. The sample projects connect learning with student experiences and with relevant, meaningful real-life contexts, and are excellent examples of situated learning.
- Creative and original. Projects do not follow set patterns or simply polish up existing curriculum ideas.
- Genuine. Connections across subjects and between content and skills are realistic, not just ‘tacked on’ to projects to satisfy a need for being integrated.
- In-depth. Students would cover subject content more thoroughly than current models generally allow for.
- Comprehensive. As a class, we were unable to find a subject area or important learning skill that was not covered by the Core Content, Skills, or Themes (our breakout group did have an interesting discussion on whether there is a place in education for the study of Religion, which is not covered in the Framework; however, study of World Religions may be compatible with Cross-Cultural Skills and the Global Awareness theme).
- Flexible. It allows for differentiation. Students and/or teachers can develop the project ideas in directions that are of interest to them, or to suit local conditions, or to relate to current topical interests. Individual students' learning needs can be accommodated.
- Student-Centered. Students are able to construct their own knowledge, guide their own learning, pursue areas of interest, and match their learning experiences to their learning strengths.
- Supported. P21 offers extensive professional development and online resources at every stage of implementation of the curriculum.
Concerns
I feel that expectations of students are too high at times. Here is one example:
I feel that expectations of students are too high at times. Here is one example:
Students trained in music of one cultural style join an ensemble that performs music from a distinct culture, and learn to adapt their existing musical skills and understanding to the demands of the new context (i.e., classical musicians play jazz, a koto player takes up western guitar, or a fiddle player performs in a classical orchestra). The students then interact, either virtually or live, with native performers of the new musical genre to better understand the cultural context and appropriate practices of that genre.
(P21 Arts Subject Map; Grade 8 Music: Social and Cross-Cultural Skills) |
This is an exciting and creative idea, and if students were successful in this project, the experience would be enriching and meaningful. In my experience, however, most instrumental music students in grade 8 have not mastered their instruments sufficiently to play in an ensemble beyond a fairly basic level. Furthermore, playing a new style of music would require students to be able to listen critically to their own sound, and to modify fundamental aspects of their playing (for example, bowing technique). These skills are rare among 13-14 year-olds, and are more what I’d expect of grade 11 or grade 12 students.
Another criticism is that the curriculum relies on significant buy-in from students. Many projects require students to direct, persevere with, monitor, and reflect on their own learning. The project-based nature of the curriculum will most likely require students to work in groups without constant teacher supervision; some activities will require students to access technology or environments outside of the regular classroom. While this might be expected of older students, the level of maturity and focus implied by the curriculum materials for younger students seems to be somewhat idealistic. One argument might be that this curriculum will be more motivating for students, and I think this is true: it connects learning to real-life contexts; it is flexible enough to appeal to different interests and learning styles/preferences; and it is filled with meaningful, engaging activities. Students will be students, however, and I expect some loss of focus in less closely-supervised, student-directed, group activities. Without sufficient buy-in from students to negate this loss of focus, this curriculum will struggle.
One challenge for schools implementing this curriculum will be creating timetables with enough flexibility to accommodate project-based learning. Many of these projects would require substantial blocks of uninterrupted time; current timetables don’t allow that for all grades, especially in middle school or intermediate grades. This curriculum may provide schools with the opportunity to re-think traditional timetable models.
One concern is with how 21st century skills would be assessed. The Partnership for 21st Century Learning's suggestions regarding assessment focus on using a blend of summative and formative assessments (see P21's 21st Century Skills Assessment). In Technology and Learning, my breakout group compiled a 'Top 10' list of assessment strategies, many of which correlate to teaching approaches supported by learning theory, including problem-based learning, situated learning and student-centered learning. For further discussion on assessment, see the collaboratively created document, Assessing 21st Century Skills.
My main criticism is that technology is not universal. Much of the impetus behind the 21st century movement comes from the assumptions that young people are immersed in technology, and the absence of relevant technology in the classroom decreases student engagement. Influential writers supporting this view have included Prensky, who popularized the notion of today's students as 'digital natives', and Tapscott, whose 'NetGen' norms are summarized on the Technology page of this website.
But is it true? Are today's students, having grown up in a digital world, immersed in technology, completely tech-savvy, and desperately keen to use their smart phones, tablets and computers to learn? Perhaps not.
My initial response to Tapscott's writing was to baulk at his generalizations. While much of what he says seems to describe many of the students I teach, there are a number of students who don't fit that box. Some don't own their own devices. Some own older or cheaper devices than their peers. Some students do not have internet access at home, or share a single computer with siblings and parents.
Jensen et al (2012) also baulk at applying terms like ‘digital native’ to an entire generation, and point to research which shows differences within this generation of students in access to ICT based on gender; culture; socio-economic background; and geographic location. “[R]esearch shows that ICT is socially distributed in such a way that these “digital native” traits are specific to socio-economically advantaged populations” (Jensen et al, 2012:11).
Those students who do have access to technology are not necessarily using it for education. Partosoedarso et al (2013) found that students rated themselves most proficient in social use of ICT, and lowest in skills related to education. Jensen et al concur: “Students’ use of everyday ICT (for socializing and entertainment purposes) … does not necessarily transfer over into skillful use of ICT for learning” (Jensen et al, 2012:12). My experience of students using technology is that they are very skilled and experienced in social apps - Facebook, Twitter, and so on - and in gaming, spending hours every day on both, but lack the skills to use the same hardware to learn. They know all the cheat codes for the latest game, but look no further than the first link provided by Google when searching for information. They can find images to decorate their desktop, but have trouble discerning the difference between an advertisement and an impartial source of information.
Even among teachers, insufficient thought has been given to how to best use these technologies to support effective learning. In many cases, technology - installed at great outlay of time and money - is used superficially or without change in teaching approaches. “Despite massive investment in digital technologies for education over the last two decades, there remains little evidence of its impact on student achievement. As well, the research consulted for this report points to inconsistent, uneven and inconsequential implementation of ICT to advance the teaching and learning of 21st century skills” (Jensen et al, 2012:11). I have seen computers used chiefly as games consoles for students who finish work early. In my experience, the primary use of student-owned (BYOD) technology in the classroom is to listen to music while working silently. The next most common use is playing educational games when classwork is completed. Technology is often used as a replacement for non-digital technology (typing the final draft of an essay on a word-processor instead of writing it out by hand), without considering new pedagogical approaches afforded by the technology. "[C]urrent approaches to using technology in schooling largely reflect applying information and communication technologies as a means of increasing the effectiveness of traditional, 20th century instructional approaches" (Dede, 2010:4). Even recent curriculum reviews indicate that education is still not grasping all the possibilities for new ways of thinking technology affords us. For example, the new national curriculum in Australia, which was to be implemented beginning in 2011, grafts 21st century technology to 20th century teaching models (see my review of the proposed Australian national curriculum for further details).
Jensen et al (2012) also point out that little if any research has been done on the environmental impact of the increased use of technology required by 21st century curricula, including increased power consumption, and the impact of disposal of computer hardware.
Another criticism is that the curriculum relies on significant buy-in from students. Many projects require students to direct, persevere with, monitor, and reflect on their own learning. The project-based nature of the curriculum will most likely require students to work in groups without constant teacher supervision; some activities will require students to access technology or environments outside of the regular classroom. While this might be expected of older students, the level of maturity and focus implied by the curriculum materials for younger students seems to be somewhat idealistic. One argument might be that this curriculum will be more motivating for students, and I think this is true: it connects learning to real-life contexts; it is flexible enough to appeal to different interests and learning styles/preferences; and it is filled with meaningful, engaging activities. Students will be students, however, and I expect some loss of focus in less closely-supervised, student-directed, group activities. Without sufficient buy-in from students to negate this loss of focus, this curriculum will struggle.
One challenge for schools implementing this curriculum will be creating timetables with enough flexibility to accommodate project-based learning. Many of these projects would require substantial blocks of uninterrupted time; current timetables don’t allow that for all grades, especially in middle school or intermediate grades. This curriculum may provide schools with the opportunity to re-think traditional timetable models.
One concern is with how 21st century skills would be assessed. The Partnership for 21st Century Learning's suggestions regarding assessment focus on using a blend of summative and formative assessments (see P21's 21st Century Skills Assessment). In Technology and Learning, my breakout group compiled a 'Top 10' list of assessment strategies, many of which correlate to teaching approaches supported by learning theory, including problem-based learning, situated learning and student-centered learning. For further discussion on assessment, see the collaboratively created document, Assessing 21st Century Skills.
My main criticism is that technology is not universal. Much of the impetus behind the 21st century movement comes from the assumptions that young people are immersed in technology, and the absence of relevant technology in the classroom decreases student engagement. Influential writers supporting this view have included Prensky, who popularized the notion of today's students as 'digital natives', and Tapscott, whose 'NetGen' norms are summarized on the Technology page of this website.
But is it true? Are today's students, having grown up in a digital world, immersed in technology, completely tech-savvy, and desperately keen to use their smart phones, tablets and computers to learn? Perhaps not.
My initial response to Tapscott's writing was to baulk at his generalizations. While much of what he says seems to describe many of the students I teach, there are a number of students who don't fit that box. Some don't own their own devices. Some own older or cheaper devices than their peers. Some students do not have internet access at home, or share a single computer with siblings and parents.
Jensen et al (2012) also baulk at applying terms like ‘digital native’ to an entire generation, and point to research which shows differences within this generation of students in access to ICT based on gender; culture; socio-economic background; and geographic location. “[R]esearch shows that ICT is socially distributed in such a way that these “digital native” traits are specific to socio-economically advantaged populations” (Jensen et al, 2012:11).
Those students who do have access to technology are not necessarily using it for education. Partosoedarso et al (2013) found that students rated themselves most proficient in social use of ICT, and lowest in skills related to education. Jensen et al concur: “Students’ use of everyday ICT (for socializing and entertainment purposes) … does not necessarily transfer over into skillful use of ICT for learning” (Jensen et al, 2012:12). My experience of students using technology is that they are very skilled and experienced in social apps - Facebook, Twitter, and so on - and in gaming, spending hours every day on both, but lack the skills to use the same hardware to learn. They know all the cheat codes for the latest game, but look no further than the first link provided by Google when searching for information. They can find images to decorate their desktop, but have trouble discerning the difference between an advertisement and an impartial source of information.
Even among teachers, insufficient thought has been given to how to best use these technologies to support effective learning. In many cases, technology - installed at great outlay of time and money - is used superficially or without change in teaching approaches. “Despite massive investment in digital technologies for education over the last two decades, there remains little evidence of its impact on student achievement. As well, the research consulted for this report points to inconsistent, uneven and inconsequential implementation of ICT to advance the teaching and learning of 21st century skills” (Jensen et al, 2012:11). I have seen computers used chiefly as games consoles for students who finish work early. In my experience, the primary use of student-owned (BYOD) technology in the classroom is to listen to music while working silently. The next most common use is playing educational games when classwork is completed. Technology is often used as a replacement for non-digital technology (typing the final draft of an essay on a word-processor instead of writing it out by hand), without considering new pedagogical approaches afforded by the technology. "[C]urrent approaches to using technology in schooling largely reflect applying information and communication technologies as a means of increasing the effectiveness of traditional, 20th century instructional approaches" (Dede, 2010:4). Even recent curriculum reviews indicate that education is still not grasping all the possibilities for new ways of thinking technology affords us. For example, the new national curriculum in Australia, which was to be implemented beginning in 2011, grafts 21st century technology to 20th century teaching models (see my review of the proposed Australian national curriculum for further details).
Jensen et al (2012) also point out that little if any research has been done on the environmental impact of the increased use of technology required by 21st century curricula, including increased power consumption, and the impact of disposal of computer hardware.
In summary, the pedagogy behind 21st century education appears to be based on current research in learning theory. It is student-centered, engaging, situated in real-life contexts, collaborative, skills-focused, and technology-based. However, there are some concerns, largely to do with the assumptions about access to technology and the ability of both 'digital native' students and 'digital immigrant' teachers to use technology for education. Teachers versed in traditional models of education will need to work hard to change to problem-based, student-centered learning, but the hidden learning curve with this curriculum involves students changing the way they use technology, from socializing and entertainment to learning.