Schooling Australia II: the 21st century learning furphy

Such students will be able to contribute to what the OECD refers to as ‘The Future We Want’, in which the overarching aim is to ‘shape a shared future built on the well-being of individuals, communities and the planet’. Similarly, ‘human flourishing’ is identified as the transcendent goal by a ‘global partnership’ comprising representatives from the OECD, Intel, Microsoft and Pearson as well as high-profile experts from Australia and other countries according to Fullan and Langworthy’s 2013 book, Towards a New End: New Pedagogies for Deep Learning.

Echoing the OECD’s worldview, this group maintains that the current ‘crisis’ in education requires new pedagogies and ‘new policies, measures and evidence-based pedagogical models to enable learning relevant for the knowledge-based, globalized era’. They point to statistics on disengaged students and frustrated teachers, saying that there is a ‘moral imperative’ to ensure that education is ‘radically rethought’ because of the ‘chaos’ resulting from ’ transition to knowledge-based economies and global interdependency, enabled and accelerated by technology’. A radical shift will ensure that students benefit from ‘the interaction between pedagogy and technology’ and avoid boredom.

All advocates of curriculum redesign based on the 21^st century worldview emphasise a combination of knowledge and human skills, values and attributes. Pioneers of the focus on 21^st century skills, Fadel and Trilling (2009), in 21st Century Skills: Learning for Life in Our Times, maintain that education is at the crossroads of the ‘knowledge age’ and that a shift in pedagogy and curriculum is imminent because technological advances in automation and artificial intelligence are recasting teaching and learning. Fadel and Trilling’s model identifies the practical skill sets that today's learner will need for life and work in the twenty-first century, prioritising critical-thinking skills, communication skills and creativity and innovation over rote memorization and ‘predetermined application conducted in isolation’.

A major dilemma for education systems, according to the OECD’s Andreas Schleicher, is how to ‘educate young people for their own future rather than for our past.’ Schleicher claims that there has been little progress in educational practice since the Industrial Age, particularly as school systems still employ ‘norms’ of age, fixed curriculum content and achievement standards that rely on retention and/or memorisation of knowledge. While the OECD’s framework refers to academic rigour(e.g. Topics should be challenging and enable deep thinking and reflection), students are already being led to believe that because knowledge is instantly accessible, old ways of learning have lost their value. Advice provided to Canadian parents, for example, includes the statement that ‘the focus on memorizing information to learn is no longer a priority’ (C21 Canada, 2018).

Contemporary trends in curriculum design also emphasise ‘deep learning’, an approach that purports to address concerns about student engagement and academic achievement and enable more effective application of ‘transferable’ knowledge and skills.

In contrast to the scholarly expectations of the past, ‘deep learning’ in the 21^st century does not simply mean sustained intellectual effort or rigorous discipline-based study. With some semantic variation across education systems, this approach identifies the key elements of ‘deep learning’ as character, citizenship, critical thinking and problem-solving, collaboration, creativity and imagination, according to Fullan and Langworthy. The starting point is not the mastery of what can be referred to as ‘the basics’. Instead, there is a renewed emphasis on assessment as the means of ‘operationalising’ deep learning so that students can ‘co-create new knowledge’.

The contention is that in order to ‘prepare youth for effective participation in this kind of world, our education systems should refocus on engaging students in this kind of work, where ideal outcomes are not achievement scores on tests but students’ capacities to collaborate, connect with others, create innovative products, programs and solutions, and ultimately to implement them in the real world’.

In anticipation of new, internationally validated tests and other ‘emerging’ assessment tools, and with an eye to greater understanding of the learning environments of students, the ‘critical first aim for the project is thus the development of more concrete, measurable operationalizations of deep learning skills and indicators for tracking to what extent this kind of connected and flourishing learning is happening’ say Fullan and Langworthy. So21^st century teachers – referred to as ‘designers of learning experiences’ – ‘must know where their students are on their individual learning continuums, and be able to identify success criteria that push forward students’ knowledge and skill mastery at progressive stages of that continuum’.

Notwithstanding any innovations in measuring progress and providing improved learning experiences, it is arguable that students will need very clear parameters in the acquisition of knowledge that will allow them to apply it effectively. For example, given too much choice, or ‘agency’, many may elect only to learn about what interests them in the moment or what they perceive to demand least intellectual effort. This raises inevitable questions about cognitive development in the longer term. Will all students have equitable opportunities to achieve in high-quality learning environments?  How can they know what they need to know and will their use of technology enhance learning rather than drive it?

Is it educational heresy to question why the 21^st century model is likely to be successful? Is the ‘future-ready’ philosophy so much more applicable now than in earlier times? Was it not a feature of schooling for young Australians born in the post-Federation years, when mass education began to be seen as a critical factor in nation-building? 

Importantly, is there a risk of throwing the proverbial baby out with the bathwater, given the implication that much or all that has been thought and done by previous generations of schools and teachers has lost its cachet? And who gets to decide which knowledge, skills, attitudes and values will actually be taught and tested?

These are profound areas of debate ... certainly challenging for parents and teachers and school leaders who are directly accountable for the personal and academic growth of young Australians. These issues raise questions about academic rigour, national standards and values, and the development of a genuine understanding of the benefits of lifelong learning.