effective.
The second branch grows into the habits of mind that characterise a ‘good learner’. While the virtues of a ‘good person’ seem relatively stable across time and culture, those of the ‘good learner’ are less familiar. Many take it for granted, however, that they are of real, practical relevance to young people embarking on life in a time of particular change, opportunity and uncertainty. The internet makes knowledge instantly available, and while Wikipedia isastonishingly accurate, it is also fallible. Young people need to be ‘knowledge critics’ and not just ‘knowledge consumers’. In cyber-world, people are often not who they say they are, so young people, if they are to be safe, need to be ‘identity critics’ too. Learning is often hard, protracted and perplexing, so they need to be ready, willing and able to struggle and persist. Learning is often a collaborative rather than (or as well as) a solitary venture, so the inclination to be a good sounding board for others, and the ability to give feedback in a respectful and useful way and take criticism yourself without getting hurt and defensive, is also needed.
These learning attributes go by different names: 21st century skills, wider skills for learning, soft skills, non-cognitive skills, dispositions, character strengths or traits, attitudes and values. As we have explained, we think it’s better not to use the word ‘skills’, but many people still do. And we could argue with some of these descriptions. Calling them ‘soft’ undervalues them and encourages people who don’t immediately understand them to use such pejorative labels as ‘touchy-feely’, as if ‘persisting in the face of difficulty’ or ‘looking at things through someone else’s eyes’ were too embarrassingly Californian to be taken really seriously by hard-headed grown-ups. ‘Non-cognitive’ isn’t right either because that seems to imply ‘emotional’, and feeds into the mistaken view that emotions are somehow subversive of rigorous thinking. Concentration and imagination are highly ‘cognitive’ – if by that you mean ‘essential to effective and creative problem-solving’.
In 2009, we were commissioned by the National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts (NESTA)to do a review of these different frameworks. 8 We found instances of these ‘character specifications’ from the national governments of, for example, Singapore, Australia, New Zealand, Finland and Ireland. Interestingly, several of these countries are at the top of the PISA tables, but they have become dissatisfied with a form of education that merely turns out, as some of them put it, ‘test-passing robots’. They know that success in the modern world depends on attributes of mind and heart that are deeper than the ability to get your sums right. And they are desperately keen to know how these traits can be cultivated more systematically and more successfully in schools.
In brief
The best schools have always concerned themselves with the development of ‘character’. Traditionally this meant being honourable, erudite and a ‘good sport’. But today we need to think again: not about whether this concern is relevant – of course it is – but about exactly what characteristics are relevant for all in a socially, geographically, politically, digitally and cognitively complicated world.
Is this some kind of wishy-washy liberal agenda, designed to dumb down our youth by letting them run around like little savages and be completely self-indulgent, and fail to learn to read and write? Does this mean taking our eye off the acquisition of literacy and numeracy, assuming thatchildren don’t need any knowledge, and neglecting the elegance of algebra and the insight of Shakespeare? Absolutely not. Children need interesting, engaging and important things to learn about . But there is more to school than knowledge. Attitudes and beliefs will be formed there that will influence,
The second branch grows into the habits of mind that characterise a ‘good learner’. While the virtues of a ‘good person’ seem relatively stable across time and culture, those of the ‘good learner’ are less familiar. Many take it for granted, however, that they are of real, practical relevance to young people embarking on life in a time of particular change, opportunity and uncertainty. The internet makes knowledge instantly available, and while Wikipedia isastonishingly accurate, it is also fallible. Young people need to be ‘knowledge critics’ and not just ‘knowledge consumers’. In cyber-world, people are often not who they say they are, so young people, if they are to be safe, need to be ‘identity critics’ too. Learning is often hard, protracted and perplexing, so they need to be ready, willing and able to struggle and persist. Learning is often a collaborative rather than (or as well as) a solitary venture, so the inclination to be a good sounding board for others, and the ability to give feedback in a respectful and useful way and take criticism yourself without getting hurt and defensive, is also needed.
These learning attributes go by different names: 21st century skills, wider skills for learning, soft skills, non-cognitive skills, dispositions, character strengths or traits, attitudes and values. As we have explained, we think it’s better not to use the word ‘skills’, but many people still do. And we could argue with some of these descriptions. Calling them ‘soft’ undervalues them and encourages people who don’t immediately understand them to use such pejorative labels as ‘touchy-feely’, as if ‘persisting in the face of difficulty’ or ‘looking at things through someone else’s eyes’ were too embarrassingly Californian to be taken really seriously by hard-headed grown-ups. ‘Non-cognitive’ isn’t right either because that seems to imply ‘emotional’, and feeds into the mistaken view that emotions are somehow subversive of rigorous thinking. Concentration and imagination are highly ‘cognitive’ – if by that you mean ‘essential to effective and creative problem-solving’.
In 2009, we were commissioned by the National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts (NESTA)to do a review of these different frameworks. 8 We found instances of these ‘character specifications’ from the national governments of, for example, Singapore, Australia, New Zealand, Finland and Ireland. Interestingly, several of these countries are at the top of the PISA tables, but they have become dissatisfied with a form of education that merely turns out, as some of them put it, ‘test-passing robots’. They know that success in the modern world depends on attributes of mind and heart that are deeper than the ability to get your sums right. And they are desperately keen to know how these traits can be cultivated more systematically and more successfully in schools.
In brief
The best schools have always concerned themselves with the development of ‘character’. Traditionally this meant being honourable, erudite and a ‘good sport’. But today we need to think again: not about whether this concern is relevant – of course it is – but about exactly what characteristics are relevant for all in a socially, geographically, politically, digitally and cognitively complicated world.
Is this some kind of wishy-washy liberal agenda, designed to dumb down our youth by letting them run around like little savages and be completely self-indulgent, and fail to learn to read and write? Does this mean taking our eye off the acquisition of literacy and numeracy, assuming thatchildren don’t need any knowledge, and neglecting the elegance of algebra and the insight of Shakespeare? Absolutely not. Children need interesting, engaging and important things to learn about . But there is more to school than knowledge. Attitudes and beliefs will be formed there that will influence,
Similar Books
