The goal of learning in this age of instant information is necessarily shifting from learning ‘things’. Memorizing facts that can be looked up has become less important in the information age than learning how to learn, understanding your own learning processes, and learning how to work as part of a larger group. Though the P21 student outcomes of critical thinking, creativity and innovation, problem solving, and communication and collaboration have been tossed about for a while student mastery of these skills seems to be a little slower catching up.
I see the effects of this on the traditional age college students around me today. Growing up and receiving their educational foundation while this focus shift was occurring left some holes in skill sets that they now struggle to fill. Excellent students with excellent grades have not mastered the art of professional communication or working as part of a collaborative team and struggle as we place them in real situations that demand these skills. It often seems students who receive the best letter grades are especially vulnerable to this. In the Brown video I watched (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41pNX9-yNu4), he said “If the first thing that happens when something doesn’t work is that it frightens you, then you are not going to be very willing to embrace change’.
I can think of a few examples from my own experience. I know of a university program with a competitive entry process who recently switched providers for their entrance test. They switched because they found they needed a test that incorporated a way to assess critical thinking while their previous selection process based the majority of the emphasis on GPA and math skills. Students with very impressive GPA’s in a difficult sampling of cross discipline pre-requisite courses hadn’t necessarily mastered critical thinking.
For another real world example we could look at the difference between the skills students think they have and how employers rate them. Almost every college degree program requires communication classes and yet employers are still complaining we are not doing a good job preparing the next generation workforce to communicate (https://www.nbcnews.com/business/careers/why-johnny-cant-write-why-employers-are-mad-f2D11577444).
So I wonder what is going on. I think I have been reading about the importance of these skills for a long time. Why are they still missing in students that have gotten to the post-secondary arena. Has their been a gap in assessing for these outcomes? Have they been accounted for in standardized testing?
Obviously, I don’t have the answer here. I am also not very familiar with what standardized testing over the last 15 or 20 years has been designed to assess. I’d love to hear from some of you that know more about that subject. And though it seriously dates me, I thought the brainstorming activity was pretty interesting. Here is the list I came up with…
The papers I submitted in high school were typed on actual paper and allowed to have two typos.
The news was on for 18 minutes 3 times a day.
We went to record stores and spent whole days making mix tapes.
We had to find a pay phone to call home from the mall.
Smoking was socially acceptable
No one I knew thought they would ever be in a war.
Students never emailed professors.
You had to go to someone’s house to play Dungeons and Dragons.
Nice work, Kim.
I liked your list at the end. Your “you had to go to someone’s house to play Dungeons and Dragons” particularly resonated with me. 🙂
I think the point you’re getting at is that despite a generation (at least) of talking about the importance of fostering critical thinking, we’re still not doing a very good job at it. Or at least we haven’t nailed a design prescription for how to achieve it. Do you think fostering critical thinking may be fundamentally at odds with economic pressures constraining modern educational systems? Maybe we know how to foster critical thinking, but it just doesn’t scale?
-owen
Kim – when you have some free time, I recommend you read Mike Rose’s book, Lives on the Boundary. It’s about students in the 80s coming into UCLA and the challenges they face; their professors feel like the students aren’t as prepared as the students of the past. This isn’t a new phenomenon – employers think colleges don’t prepare students for the real world, colleges think high schools don’t prepare students for higher learning, high schools think middle and elementary schools don’t prepare students for independence, etc. Maybe we’re just measuring the wrong outcomes? I dunno. And that train of thought seems consistent for at least as far back as I’ve taken the time to trace it – to early American universities. “Critical thinking” has almost become a buzzword, don’t you think? Everyone uses it all the time and nobody seems to think anyone else is capable of it. It sounds like we have quite the big issue on our hands…far bigger than any of us are maybe prepared to tackle?
“Students with very impressive GPA’s in a difficult sampling of cross discipline pre-requisite courses hadn’t necessarily mastered critical thinking.”
I’ve noticed that too. I’ve had honors and AP students who were far less critical and open-minded than “lower-level” (yuck!) students. Interesting that you’ve had the same experiences. What were the backgrounds of those students like? Did they always have good grades? I think the issue might be more that there’s a disconnect between what we say we value and what we actually value…
“Critical thinking†has almost become a buzzword, don’t you think?
Yes I do! Half the time I think what people mean to say is that they want people to have “common sense”. Similar but different. And you are right on about nobody thinks anyone is prepared. I wonder if that becomes less true the more elite the entry criteria. Are the Ivy league schools noticing less prepared students?
Do you think fostering critical thinking may be fundamentally at odds with economic pressures constraining modern educational systems?
Or because of the way the funding tends to be tied to school report cards and the focus shift to preparing students to do well on standardized tests.
Kim, I think you nailed it on the head with the last comment. “Or because of the way the funding tends to be tied to school report cards and the focus shift to preparing students to do well on standardized tests.” I worked at a Title I elementary school for 5 years and the focus was ENTIRELY on standardized tests. Federal funding for support teachers, enrichment programs, technology, and other resources was tied directly to Adequate Yearly Progress. If our school didn’t make AYP, the school was punished. We lost money to provide valuable programs for underprivileged students and families. The school lost resources, but the families suffered. Therefore, standardized tests were the focal point of daily operations. Teachers know roughly what is covered on various sections of the test and spend more time teaching to the specifics of the test than teaching the critical thinking skills necessary to solve general problems encountered in daily academia. Now with the new Danielson Model in ASD, teachers’ annual evaluations are based on student performance on standardized tests and other biased measures. If the pressures of outside funding are taken out of the equation, teachers are far more free to teach general problem solving skills and critical thinking techniques. The more I think about this, the more I believe that private schools are the solution to the current problem. And I hate to say that because I know it will only perpetuate the gaps that are forming based on economic status.