Comments on: 21st-century smarts http://www.joannejacobs.com/2009/12/21st-century-smarts/ Thinking and Linking by Joanne Jacobs Fri, 10 Feb 2012 04:51:22 +0000 hourly 1 By: SteveH http://www.joannejacobs.com/2009/12/21st-century-smarts/#comment-52958 SteveH Wed, 09 Dec 2009 13:05:03 +0000 http://www.joannejacobs.com/?p=12420#comment-52958 What 21st century skills and learning comes down to in schools is strictly vocational. The talk of critical thinking and understanding is just a cover. This week, my 8th grade son has to take an online "TechLiteracy Assessment", required by the state, to check for the acquisition of 21st century skills. He will be tested on basic facts and skills of how to use a computer and several types of software: word processor, spreadsheet, and slide creation. Nowhere is there anything about using these things for critical thinking. Any sort of critical thinking that his schools do (and there is a little) do not require these skills. Random searching of the internet is about the closest they come. More typically, they expect critical analysis when the kids do not have the needed historical or content background and skills in the subject area. The skills he will be tested on are more about documenting whatever analysis he has already done. These skills are not the vehicle for the analysis. So, my son will be able to crank out the slickest Word document with graphics, spreadsheet graphs and tons of content from the web, but it could be crap. What 21st century skills and learning comes down to in schools is strictly vocational. The talk of critical thinking and understanding is just a cover. This week, my 8th grade son has to take an online “TechLiteracy Assessment”, required by the state, to check for the acquisition of 21st century skills.

He will be tested on basic facts and skills of how to use a computer and several types of software: word processor, spreadsheet, and slide creation. Nowhere is there anything about using these things for critical thinking. Any sort of critical thinking that his schools do (and there is a little) do not require these skills. Random searching of the internet is about the closest they come. More typically, they expect critical analysis when the kids do not have the needed historical or content background and skills in the subject area. The skills he will be tested on are more about documenting whatever analysis he has already done. These skills are not the vehicle for the analysis. So, my son will be able to crank out the slickest Word document with graphics, spreadsheet graphs and tons of content from the web, but it could be crap.

]]> By: Tracy W http://www.joannejacobs.com/2009/12/21st-century-smarts/#comment-52957 Tracy W Wed, 09 Dec 2009 11:11:00 +0000 http://www.joannejacobs.com/?p=12420#comment-52957 <i>Whereas in a mere 20 years we have seen cell phones, computers, and the internet become an integral part of most of our lives.</i> Nope. The technologies you list are older than 20 years. In 1989 two of my uncles had already started software companies and I nagged my parents into upgrading from their old IBM home computer with no hard drive, to a PC 286. My father was using Macs at work as a personal computer. According to Wikipedia the first carphone was introduced in Finland in 1971, 38 years ago, so about twice your "mere 20 years". TCP/IP dates back to the late 1970s/early 1980s. The mass expansion of the Internet and thus PCs, and cellphones took place in the 1990s. But this has its parallels in the sudden setting up of gas networks, electricity networks, or what would happen to an area when the railway arrived. Like Supersub, I don't see anything special about the rate of change during the life I've lived compared with that of my great-grandmothers'. (I am not saying that it's slower - the Internet has changed the world, and I now can't remember how I managed to have a social life before cellphones although I know that I did, just I think that the changes my great-grandma lived through were as dramatic). Whereas in a mere 20 years we have seen cell phones, computers, and the internet become an integral part of most of our lives.

Nope. The technologies you list are older than 20 years. In 1989 two of my uncles had already started software companies and I nagged my parents into upgrading from their old IBM home computer with no hard drive, to a PC 286. My father was using Macs at work as a personal computer.
According to Wikipedia the first carphone was introduced in Finland in 1971, 38 years ago, so about twice your “mere 20 years”. TCP/IP dates back to the late 1970s/early 1980s.

The mass expansion of the Internet and thus PCs, and cellphones took place in the 1990s. But this has its parallels in the sudden setting up of gas networks, electricity networks, or what would happen to an area when the railway arrived.

Like Supersub, I don’t see anything special about the rate of change during the life I’ve lived compared with that of my great-grandmothers’. (I am not saying that it’s slower – the Internet has changed the world, and I now can’t remember how I managed to have a social life before cellphones although I know that I did, just I think that the changes my great-grandma lived through were as dramatic).

]]> By: SuperSub http://www.joannejacobs.com/2009/12/21st-century-smarts/#comment-52956 SuperSub Wed, 09 Dec 2009 04:38:15 +0000 http://www.joannejacobs.com/?p=12420#comment-52956 "Tracy W., I respectfully disagree. Horses and carts to the moon took a lifetime. Whereas in a mere 20 years we have seen cell phones, computers, and the internet become an integral part of most of our lives. What will life be like in another 20 years?" - Horses and carts to the moon did take a lifetime, but you're skipping over the telephone, railroads, automobiles, radio, airplanes, oh, and the atomic bomb. My guess is that if you looked at the pace of life-altering inventions since the Renaissance, it would be roughly constant. 100 years from now people will be dismissing cell phones and the Internet as revolutionary like you are dismissing other technologies. “Tracy W., I respectfully disagree. Horses and carts to the moon took a lifetime. Whereas in a mere 20 years we have seen cell phones, computers, and the internet become an integral part of most of our lives. What will life be like in another 20 years?”

- Horses and carts to the moon did take a lifetime, but you’re skipping over the telephone, railroads, automobiles, radio, airplanes, oh, and the atomic bomb. My guess is that if you looked at the pace of life-altering inventions since the Renaissance, it would be roughly constant. 100 years from now people will be dismissing cell phones and the Internet as revolutionary like you are dismissing other technologies.

]]> By: david foster http://www.joannejacobs.com/2009/12/21st-century-smarts/#comment-52955 david foster Tue, 08 Dec 2009 17:05:13 +0000 http://www.joannejacobs.com/?p=12420#comment-52955 Sarah..."There seems to be a split between those who think it’s to learn “functional skills” or competencies, and those who love knowledge for knowledge’s sake" I think this is a misleading dichotomy. Usually, it is precisely those who "love knowledge for knowledge's sake" who develop a deep interest in a knowledge domain such as history or mathematics or German poetry of the 14th Century. Those who talk about grand overarcing things like "critical thinking" are very often, in a fundamental sense, anti-intellectual: they are using an assumed kind of meta-knowledge as an excuse for failure to absorb or to impart any *actual* knowledge. Sarah…”There seems to be a split between those who think it’s to learn “functional skills” or competencies, and those who love knowledge for knowledge’s sake”

I think this is a misleading dichotomy. Usually, it is precisely those who “love knowledge for knowledge’s sake” who develop a deep interest in a knowledge domain such as history or mathematics or German poetry of the 14th Century. Those who talk about grand overarcing things like “critical thinking” are very often, in a fundamental sense, anti-intellectual: they are using an assumed kind of meta-knowledge as an excuse for failure to absorb or to impart any *actual* knowledge.

]]> By: Sarah Ebner http://www.joannejacobs.com/2009/12/21st-century-smarts/#comment-52954 Sarah Ebner Tue, 08 Dec 2009 15:39:17 +0000 http://www.joannejacobs.com/?p=12420#comment-52954 I have been talking about exactly this - what is education for - on my blog (http://timesonline.typepad.com/schoolgate/2009/11/should-learning-and-schools-be-about-learning-skills-for-the-employment-world-or-knowledge-for-knowl.html) There seems to be a split between those who think it's to learn "functional skills" or competencies, and those who love knowledge for knowledge's sake. Surely both, but I have to say that I fear knowledge/learning is losing out to skills... I have been talking about exactly this – what is education for – on my blog (http://timesonline.typepad.com/schoolgate/2009/11/should-learning-and-schools-be-about-learning-skills-for-the-employment-world-or-knowledge-for-knowl.html)
There seems to be a split between those who think it’s to learn “functional skills” or competencies, and those who love knowledge for knowledge’s sake. Surely both, but I have to say that I fear knowledge/learning is losing out to skills…

]]> By: Parent2 http://www.joannejacobs.com/2009/12/21st-century-smarts/#comment-52953 Parent2 Tue, 08 Dec 2009 14:34:03 +0000 http://www.joannejacobs.com/?p=12420#comment-52953 In order to infer, judge, weigh, think critically, about anything, one needs a great deal of background knowledge. Thus, it follows, that those who believe their catalog of "21st century skills," should strongly back the Core Knowledge curriculum. In order to infer, judge, weigh, think critically, about anything, one needs a great deal of background knowledge. Thus, it follows, that those who believe their catalog of “21st century skills,” should strongly back the Core Knowledge curriculum.

]]> By: SteveH http://www.joannejacobs.com/2009/12/21st-century-smarts/#comment-52952 SteveH Tue, 08 Dec 2009 13:40:55 +0000 http://www.joannejacobs.com/?p=12420#comment-52952 "Is it simply mumbo-jumbo when we say we teach critical thinking skills?" It's just pedagogical cover for doing what they want. Of course, they never explain what critical thinking is, but it sure is a great way to "dis" mere facts and knowledge. What they are trying to do is to unlink mastery of basic facts and skills from critical thinking and true understanding. They want a top-down approach that appears to address the issues of critical thinking, while at the same time reducing the emphasis on the basics. This way, they can claim the high ground and put everyone else on the defensive. They argue with generalities just to make people go away. Then they can decide on all of the details. Call their bluff. Ask for details. I would agree with Ben F up to a point. There is linkage. If you help kids master basic knowledge and skills, much of critical thinking and understanding will take care of itself. Advanced levels of understanding and critical thinking evolve from there. It is not a top-down process. Their negative fixation with rote regurgitation is a reflection of bad teaching and low expectations, not bad pedagogy. “Is it simply mumbo-jumbo when we say we teach critical thinking skills?”

It’s just pedagogical cover for doing what they want. Of course, they never explain what critical thinking is, but it sure is a great way to “dis” mere facts and knowledge. What they are trying to do is to unlink mastery of basic facts and skills from critical thinking and true understanding. They want a top-down approach that appears to address the issues of critical thinking, while at the same time reducing the emphasis on the basics. This way, they can claim the high ground and put everyone else on the defensive. They argue with generalities just to make people go away. Then they can decide on all of the details. Call their bluff. Ask for details.

I would agree with Ben F up to a point. There is linkage. If you help kids master basic knowledge and skills, much of critical thinking and understanding will take care of itself. Advanced levels of understanding and critical thinking evolve from there. It is not a top-down process. Their negative fixation with rote regurgitation is a reflection of bad teaching and low expectations, not bad pedagogy.

]]> By: Ben F http://www.joannejacobs.com/2009/12/21st-century-smarts/#comment-52951 Ben F Tue, 08 Dec 2009 05:06:06 +0000 http://www.joannejacobs.com/?p=12420#comment-52951 Am I alone in suspecting that NO TEACHER EVER has TAUGHT a critical thinking skill? I mean, aren't three year olds analyzing, comparing, contrasting, inferring, etc? Teachers may ELICIT critical thinking from their students...but IMPART the skill? Am I wrong to believe that critical thinking skills are congenital, and that a teacher's job is to impart knowledge upon which these in-born skills can operate, and with which these skills yield more wise and accurate results? Is it simply mumbo-jumbo when we say we teach critical thinking skills? Am I alone in suspecting that NO TEACHER EVER has TAUGHT a critical thinking skill? I mean, aren’t three year olds analyzing, comparing, contrasting, inferring, etc? Teachers may ELICIT critical thinking from their students…but IMPART the skill?
Am I wrong to believe that critical thinking skills are congenital, and that a teacher’s job is to impart knowledge upon which these in-born skills can operate, and with which these skills yield more wise and accurate results?

Is it simply mumbo-jumbo when we say we teach critical thinking skills?

]]> By: SteveH http://www.joannejacobs.com/2009/12/21st-century-smarts/#comment-52950 SteveH Tue, 08 Dec 2009 03:15:25 +0000 http://www.joannejacobs.com/?p=12420#comment-52950 They've finally cleaned up the definition so that it could mean anything or apply to any century. Apparently this will get some of us to go away and leave them to define the details however they want. If they want to use a child-centered discovery process that accomplishes squat, that's OK because it's the idea that matters. I could define a curriculum that met all of their criteria, but I'll wager they wouldn't like it. The purpose of the manifesto is to make critics go away so that they can continue to do whatever it is that they do. Buy Smartboards. This is not about 21st Century Skills. It's about control. It's about turf. They’ve finally cleaned up the definition so that it could mean anything or apply to any century. Apparently this will get some of us to go away and leave them to define the details however they want. If they want to use a child-centered discovery process that accomplishes squat, that’s OK because it’s the idea that matters.

I could define a curriculum that met all of their criteria, but I’ll wager they wouldn’t like it. The purpose of the manifesto is to make critics go away so that they can continue to do whatever it is that they do.

Buy Smartboards.

This is not about 21st Century Skills. It’s about control. It’s about turf.

]]> By: George Larson http://www.joannejacobs.com/2009/12/21st-century-smarts/#comment-52949 George Larson Mon, 07 Dec 2009 22:13:30 +0000 http://www.joannejacobs.com/?p=12420#comment-52949 Was the Generation that grew up during the Great Depression and destroyed Fascism and Communism taught "20th Century" skills to deal with new ideas and technologies? They may have succeeded inspite of their education, but they succeeded. Very few people saw the future clearly enough to prepare their children for what was to come. I do not think that has changed. Was the Generation that grew up during the Great Depression and destroyed Fascism and Communism taught “20th Century” skills to deal with new ideas and technologies? They may have succeeded inspite of their education, but they succeeded. Very few people saw the future clearly enough to prepare their children for what was to come. I do not think that has changed.

]]>