I think it's safe to say that most teachers see the need to provide their students with a much broader skills set than just being able to write a 3 hour exam with a pen, even if a bit of critical thinking may be needed to gain a higher grade on the 'paper.'
So why aren't schools churning out millions of get-up-and-go, free-spirited, creative, innovative, entrepreneurial types, ready to get in amongst it and change the world?
This excellent article alludes to what I believe is the main culprit, and the greatest barrier to progress in education we face today: an archaic system of summative assessment.
http://cagelessthinking.com/what-is-the-point-of-educational-technology/ (thanks to Jimmy Leach for sharing this)
"Schools don’t need to be progressive to be successful, they simply need to produce good results."
And therein lies the problem, of course. In a nutshell, if it's not assessed, it's probably not a priority in the curriculum and therefore probably not taught very well, if at all. And the nature of most formal assessments that feed into league table data, PISA reports and the like, pays lip service to 21st Century Skills.
So what would 21st Century Skills assessments look like? Well, just taking one view of what those C21 Skills are, http://www.p21.org/overview/skills-framework, we can see that there is little chance of them being effectively demonstrated under the current examination systems in most schools and curricula.
I don't have time to write the book on this today, so I'll just suggest 2 examples of how we could improve things...
1) The Danes are leading the way with their 'open' Internet exams, although even this probably doesn't go far enough. See http://www.caveon.com/citn/test-security-trends-denmark-administers-cheat-proof-exams-and-let-students-access-the-internet-while-taking-tests for more details.
It's perfectly normal to have Internet access at our fingertips pretty much all the time. It's also clear that the ability to draw on the vast combined wisdom of one's own PLN is a C21 Skill that we shouldn't ignore. So why are even the Danes limiting this great innovation? At the Global Education and Skills Forum (http://educationandskillsforum.org) held in Dubai recently, Tony Blair commented that, in change management, when you first state the idea, people mostly think it won't work. Then, when you are going through the change, it's hell. Afterwards, though, you invariably wish you'd gone much further. I think the Danes will come to this conclusion.
The one caveat I see to the benefits of going open internet, is the risk that students who are better connected and have more effective PLNs simply as a result of their backgrounds, will have an unfair advantage over those who would have to work twice as hard and will probably never match the power of their peers' PLN. This is an issue, but not insurmountable. And, let's face it, this is the state of play in education today anyway - middle class kids tend to do better (as Hattie & also Harris & Goodall point out, this is not to do with money, but parental engagement, which happens to be better in middle class families). So open Internet exams may not necessarily widen this gap. At least kids would have a long time to grow their PLNs - it could even be a great leveller. Of course, there will also be concerns around the extent to which the work is actually that of the student, but I'd say this is normal - as I write this, I'm trying to ensure that I give credit for any ideas that aren't mine. Examiners may have to up their game, but hey, so be it.
2) Forget technology. How about really assessing interpersonal skills? There is no doubt how crucial these are today, more than ever. How do we assess emotional intelligence, conversational interaction, negotiation skills, decision-making and so on in the current system? It's a rhetorical question. So how about rubrics for assessing soft skills as core skills? We could simulate real life situations, video the students and have a rigorous system of assessment and moderation.
I'd rather have someone who can talk to people properly and effectively than someone who can write for 3 hours. But maybe that's just me.
So they're my top 2 for now. Maybe I'll come back with a full top 10. Or maybe I'll go and have a conversation with someone in real life - or even on the Internet. Would that be cheating?
So why aren't schools churning out millions of get-up-and-go, free-spirited, creative, innovative, entrepreneurial types, ready to get in amongst it and change the world?
This excellent article alludes to what I believe is the main culprit, and the greatest barrier to progress in education we face today: an archaic system of summative assessment.
http://cagelessthinking.com/what-is-the-point-of-educational-technology/ (thanks to Jimmy Leach for sharing this)
"Schools don’t need to be progressive to be successful, they simply need to produce good results."
And therein lies the problem, of course. In a nutshell, if it's not assessed, it's probably not a priority in the curriculum and therefore probably not taught very well, if at all. And the nature of most formal assessments that feed into league table data, PISA reports and the like, pays lip service to 21st Century Skills.
So what would 21st Century Skills assessments look like? Well, just taking one view of what those C21 Skills are, http://www.p21.org/overview/skills-framework, we can see that there is little chance of them being effectively demonstrated under the current examination systems in most schools and curricula.
I don't have time to write the book on this today, so I'll just suggest 2 examples of how we could improve things...
1) The Danes are leading the way with their 'open' Internet exams, although even this probably doesn't go far enough. See http://www.caveon.com/citn/test-security-trends-denmark-administers-cheat-proof-exams-and-let-students-access-the-internet-while-taking-tests for more details.
It's perfectly normal to have Internet access at our fingertips pretty much all the time. It's also clear that the ability to draw on the vast combined wisdom of one's own PLN is a C21 Skill that we shouldn't ignore. So why are even the Danes limiting this great innovation? At the Global Education and Skills Forum (http://educationandskillsforum.org) held in Dubai recently, Tony Blair commented that, in change management, when you first state the idea, people mostly think it won't work. Then, when you are going through the change, it's hell. Afterwards, though, you invariably wish you'd gone much further. I think the Danes will come to this conclusion.
The one caveat I see to the benefits of going open internet, is the risk that students who are better connected and have more effective PLNs simply as a result of their backgrounds, will have an unfair advantage over those who would have to work twice as hard and will probably never match the power of their peers' PLN. This is an issue, but not insurmountable. And, let's face it, this is the state of play in education today anyway - middle class kids tend to do better (as Hattie & also Harris & Goodall point out, this is not to do with money, but parental engagement, which happens to be better in middle class families). So open Internet exams may not necessarily widen this gap. At least kids would have a long time to grow their PLNs - it could even be a great leveller. Of course, there will also be concerns around the extent to which the work is actually that of the student, but I'd say this is normal - as I write this, I'm trying to ensure that I give credit for any ideas that aren't mine. Examiners may have to up their game, but hey, so be it.
2) Forget technology. How about really assessing interpersonal skills? There is no doubt how crucial these are today, more than ever. How do we assess emotional intelligence, conversational interaction, negotiation skills, decision-making and so on in the current system? It's a rhetorical question. So how about rubrics for assessing soft skills as core skills? We could simulate real life situations, video the students and have a rigorous system of assessment and moderation.
I'd rather have someone who can talk to people properly and effectively than someone who can write for 3 hours. But maybe that's just me.
So they're my top 2 for now. Maybe I'll come back with a full top 10. Or maybe I'll go and have a conversation with someone in real life - or even on the Internet. Would that be cheating?
