The Debate about 21st-Century Skills Movement

    I wanted to comment on the articles first, because after reading them, I felt that some were unconvincing and confusing while others seem to make some sense in regards to the authors’ arguments. I was confused because no one pointed out an example solution that would support his or her argument. Furthermore, the points brought up still caused confusion in what the 21^st Century Skills movement really entails. Are they only advocating for skills that businesses are looking for in the ideal employee? Are they really ignoring the importance of knowledge? Some of the critics, such as Diane Ravitch, attacked the popular trend by indicating that the movement neglects teaching vast information that is needed for critical thinking. This made me question: how much information is enough to use critical thinking effectively? Ravitch, in her Critical thinking? You need knowledge, continues to say that “the intelligent person, the one who truly is a practitioner of critical thinking, has the capacity to understand the lessons of history, to grasp the inner logic of science and mathematics, and to realize the meaning of philosophical debates by studying them.” So, would teachers be teaching students how the information they’re learning connects with one another? Or is it just about learning facts? If so, kids would need to study a lot and be able to connect the information on their own in order for them to be a “true practitioner of critical thinking.” How does one just develop critical thinking skills if they are not taught how things are related to each other or to even think in that particular way?

    The reason why I didn’t feel convinced by the arguments was because they didn’t give any specific examples. Jay Mathews relates a personal story about his final exam in his article The Latest Doomed Pedagogical Fad: 21st-Century Skills. It “would be applauded today by promoters of 21^st-century skills [because it involved] strategizing, analyzing, and collaborating.” He states that he didn’t understand what was going on, yet he still got a good grade when he turned something in. I can think of numerous examples that do not require 21^st-century skills, but one does not always have to understand to get a good grade. One example would be a physics problem where a student memorized the steps to get the final answer. He/she probably doesn’t really understand how the information is used, thus the student cannot apply it to other related and more complicated problems. The student can still get a good grade if the question is the same one, in which the steps to solving the problem is memorized.

    I also felt unconvinced with the articles that did support the 21^st –century skills. Judy Salpeter writes in 21st Century Skills: Will Our Students Be Prepared? Chris Dede’s beliefs that drills and learning just the basic information make students bored; thus, they stop wanting or even trying to learn. But, where is the evidence? Or rather, how does the “process of addressing a complicated problem” relate to the subjects at school? If the article explained an example of how these ideas would be incorporated in specific subjects, it would be more convincing. How is the ideal reader, who is an avid critical thinker, expected to make a decision without all sorts of evidence and support at hand?

    Not all the articles were unconvincing, however. I agree with two articles, one by Maura Banta (pro) and the other by Daniel Willingham (opposed). In comparison with the other “pro” articles, Banta talks about how the 21^st-century skills movement is “not about teaching either academics or skills; this is about blending the two and teaching one using the other.” This idea is portrayed differently than the other “pro” articles. She suggests that two should connect. I also think this is true. There should be a balance of both sides because both are equally important. Willingham clearly points out the benefits of knowledge and explains how it is needed more than skills: “knowledge is sometimes [needed] to identify the root nature of [a] problem” and as I have said earlier, “you might understand the problem and know what you’re supposed to do, [but, you will] still need background knowledge to use the critical thinking skill you want to apply.” As questioned above, how much knowledge should be taught if we are also teaching skills that are both needed in the future? Is there even enough time to teach all the knowledge and skills that are deemed important and relative to children’s futures?

    Both speakers, Ken Robinson and Jane McGonigal, make the argument or imply that creativity is crucial to developing the 21^st –century skills. Creativity allows people to think of various ideas that solve some sort of problem, from simply wanting to make a new design to figuring how the world can reduce pollution, for example. This idea may be true, but how do we go about developing creativity in the classrooms? If we were to come up with a common standard, is that giving too much power to the board of education administration? However, if students were allowed to choose their own learning, how will they know what they should know to prepare them for the future? Also, are jobs truly democratic, in the sense that you get to pick your own work? A worker may get to choose the method in which he or she completes a task, but the worker is still expected to get the task done. Unless a new idea is presented to improve the task, it is the worker's responsibility to see that it is finished. 

    Thus, as for teachers, they are giving children tasks to complete, not to benefit a company, for example, but to benefit the students in learning the necessary knowledge needed for the future. I believe that the basics are needed before talking about and teaching critical thinking.   If we were "discovering" what the basics were, then we would need to use some prior knowledge to think about the components of basic knowledge. However, we as a culture already know the basics, such as language, basic computations, reading and writing skills, nature, etc.; thus, it is our responsibility to teach these basics to students. From there, they can use critical thinking skills, taught and guided by teachers, to connect with more complex knowledge. Even further, higher-order thinking individuals will be able to solve the problems that have even fewer basics to jump from. To clarify, think of a block that has the most basic knowledge, such as the alphabet. Once a new knowledge is acquired, one will jump from the original block to the second, for example, a word. When another concept is understood (for example, a sentence), he/she will jump and progress to the third block (a paragraph) and so forth. Thus, we cannot have students start off at "block 10" and expect them to use higher order thinking when they have not understood "block 1" or even see the connections between blocks 1 through 9. An example would be giving a five-year-old an astrophysics book and asking them to find the solutions to the problems. Lastly, critical thinking can't be taught without making connections. The five-year-old would have nothing to connect with and would not be able to solve any of those problems. Thus, between each concept of knowledge, we can teach critical thinking skills by practicing how to connect prior and current concepts being learned in the classroom.