May 2008 — News
Print this article | Email this articleClick here to receive your FREE subscription to T.H.E. Journal
21st Century Teaching and Learning: Assessing New Knowledge
In Part 1 of this two-part series on 21st century teaching and learning, I stated:
Current mobile technology challenges [instructional] design even further as it demands a totally different approach to instructional design and also teaching methodology. It requires fluidity never before seen and new skills from both teacher and student. In fact, I would argue that while we focus on the skills needed for students in the 21st Century, we must discuss more and learn more about the skills required of teachers in the 21st Century.
Much has been discussed about the new roles teachers and students play in learning environments created by using new technology and the types of skills required of students in this century. Those skills tend to be softer skills like team building, cooperative communication strategies, self-direction, and the academic skills of critical and applied thinking, new knowledge construction and collaborative learning techniques. Alongside this dialog is another sociological discussion currently in progress attempting to define millennial students; their characteristics, expectations, and preferences in life and learning (Howe, Strauss & Matson 2000; Howe & Strauss, 2006). Much has been and is being written about how the new student characteristics should affect instructional design and increase technology use. Not so much, however, is being discussed about how these kinds of changes should affect assessment and the recognition in terms of academic value of the skills that are being developed in the learning process.
New Skills: Assessing Process
The theory of connectivism (Siemens, 2004) is interesting in this context. This theory proposes that technology and making connections in learning are linked--a combination of connectivism and constructivist methods: Learning processes previously confined to learning theory can now be actively supported by technology. Solomon and Schrum (2007) suggest that current educational trends based on standards and tests lean towards teacher-driven instruction, while the required 21st century skills of higher order thinking skills, application of technology, and adapting to change and workplace skills, among others, require new methods and new assessment measures. The challenge for teachers according to these authors is to find ways to support in-depth learning and increased student achievement, "...while also employing a variety of measures, including standardized tests." What kinds of new methods would provide the kind of learning environments and learning measurements that truly reflect the learning that is taking place? What new skills are needed if instructors are to meet this challenge?
Often, those very same math teachers, however, would not grant a passing grade for an incorrect result even if the thinking demonstrated excellent logic and well thought out connections.
Identifying new skills here does not refer to content area as much as process; thinking, interaction, collaboration, communication, application: All represent areas of process. Each of these areas is included in any process of teaching and learning. While each of these can be researched individually and its interplay with other processes in learning analyses, I would suggest that teachers/instructors in current educational environments must be aware of how new forms of communication, new ways of thinking, and new expectations and needs for application can be accommodated and valued in the learning process. That is, teachers being involved in assessment that not only assesses the outcome of the process but the process itself. Formerly, the assessment of process was more about the end result than the method you chose to arrive at that result. For example, occasionally, progressive math teachers concerned with concept building might ask students to represent their calculative methods in an attempt to validate the concept and the thinking process involved, as well as the end result. Often, those very same math teachers, however, would not grant a passing grade for an incorrect result even if the thinking demonstrated excellent logic and well thought out connections.
