Others have written about communities learning together and of the fluid and ever changing nature of communities. The point has been made that we need dialogue between different groups within the community, such as between people within what we currently call formal education and people in the wider community (parents, employers, etc). Others have highlighted the more permeable boundaries between the formal (usually in the context of schooling) and the informal (community-based, out of school experiences, etc) and the enriched opportunity to learn that when this occurs.

As I have mentioned in other blog entries I attended a symposium, Educating World Citizens for the 21^st Century and I one thing I am left wondering about is why when we talk about educating for the 21^st century the assumption commonly made is that the conversation is about the education of 5-17/18 year olds (being in the US the speakers all referred to K-12)? The title of the symposium didn’t suggest to me that attention would just be on these years. There was maybe a hint in the high level questions posed in the programme: “How can our educational system evolve to meet the challenges of the 21^st century; and “How will we educate people to be compassionate, competent, ethical and engaged citizens in an increasingly complex and interconnected world? But, with the exception of references to the importance of learning in the very early years all the conversation focused on the systems of schools and schooling. Interestingly too there was only passing thought given to maybe re-thinking aspects of schooling. The conversation was mostly about how can we use the knowledge that we have from a variety of disciplines to improve the way we educate young people, mostly in terms of the curriculum we offer and the pedagogy we use. There was some acknowledgement that adults would need to learn new things, in this case the teachers who will need to take account of developing knowledge from neuroscience and psychology given that such knowledge could help improve the learning of their students.

Now of course we know how important learning is during the years of schooling but the very early years are also critical (with growing evidence that these years are even more important than we have realised) and the kind of education that supports learning post school; at work, and throughout life seem rather important too! We can, of course, hope that schools can be beacons ­ as many already are ­ of what 21^st century learning might involve but to me it feels too narrow a window to be pinning all our hopes and attention in these years of life. Do we need a more spacious definition of “education system” so the default position isn’t just a focus on schools but takes account of the kind of “systems” we need at the various stages of life? Or, given that many are advocating more permeable boundaries between the so called “formal” and “informal” systems maybe we need new terminology so that we keep our conversation on education and learning and not on the “systems” of today?

Robyn Community engagement, Shifting schooling community, community engagement, education, educational debate

Thanks Rachel for your comments on the first thinking piece I wrote from the conference.

The second idea that I found myself musing on as I reflected on the conversations held during the Educating World Citizens for the 21^st Century symposia relates to the “opportunity to contribute and participate”. I am curious if you think there is anything  useful or new here that can nudge our thinking forward in terms of what might constitute a 21^st century curriculum in practice. The essence of the idea is that young people are living in the 21^st century, that they have insights that we can learn from, and that they have a contribution to make ­ and we need to provide the tools and the opportunities for them to do this. In the context of schooling some commentators suggested that young people need to be considered as resource and not a problem to be fixed. Ronald Dahl, a professor of psychiatry and psychology, highlighted the fact that although early life is very important in shaping the brain there are other important times too. He suggested that adolescence may be a unique time with new interactions developing between neural pathways. It is a time when thinking and control systems are getting stronger and with scaffolding, he thought, this energy can be used to ignite passions; to take action in purposeful activities. Another speaker, Jacquelynne Eccles, said it was young people who led the de-segregation of schools in the United States and asked “how can we encourage them to take responsibility – to understand that they have the opportunity to make changes”. She used a wonderful metaphor of leadership, calling for young people to be “thermostat leaders” – changing the climate of the society and for them not to be as many leaders ­ merely “thermometer leaders” ­ who just read and report on the climate.

The idea of young people having the energy and ideas to shape a more positive  future was picked up by other speakers. It was suggested that many young people are interested in contributing, in making a difference to current global challenges, such as global warming, and are open to being engaged. However, the opportunity to participate in this way is often limited and as Matthieu Ricard, a Buddhist monk, suggested we often say, “don’t get distracted, concentrate on school stuff” rather than saying “here’s a window of opportunity to work in the community”. A number of examples were given that illustrated how powerful such experiences can be for learning. One commonly used is for older students who are struggling to succeed at school to have the opportunity to teach younger children. This strategy takes what the older kids have to give, recognises this and draws on it, and so provides a context for building confidence and the courage to continue to learn. To be able to contribute, participate ­ and lead ­ young people need not only to be given opportunities; they also need to be given the tools to take up such work.  Further they need to think they have something to contribute. This was an idea raised by researcher Peter Benson whose work involves talking with young people and he too took the position that young people were not vessels to be filled up but flames to be lit. His research, which involves interviewing young people demonstrated that while about 75% of young people can identify and talk about what really interests them, and the other 25% can do so with gentle probing, the significant adults in their lives (such as parents and teacher) frequently were unaware of this interest. Overall, Benson’s research has shown that: (1) everyone can describe what gives them joy and satisfaction, what Benson calls their “spark”; (2) young people yearn for authentic relationships: (3) they want opportunities to nourish the “spark”; and (4) they are keen to live in a community where they are seen as a resource not a problem to be fixed. He wasn’t suggesting that “sparks” should necessarily relate to a vocation, in fact he argued that they shouldn’t be turned into a vocation too soon. What was important was nourishing this interest/passion as it was this that helps people thrive and so feel compelled to participate and contribute in the world of today. He suggested that we should be asking all young people the following questions: what is your spark; who helps nourish your spark; who knows of  your spark; what gets in the way of your spark; how can I help?

There aren’t really any new ideas in all this either but perhaps it is helpful to think about them in the context of notions of our notions of participation and contribution, one of the key competencies in the New Zealand school curriculum. What do you think?

Robyn Shifting schooling key competencies, learning, young people

I have just attended a symposium in Washington DC that was designed to provide a conversation about the kind of education that would be most likely to provide young people with the tools they need to meet the challenges of the 21^st century. The conversation drew on perspectives from educational theory and practice, philosophy, psychology, neuroscience, and the wisdom of the contemplative traditions. So what did I learn that might help us as we think about shifting our thinking ­ and that of our students’ ­ to 21^st century thinking? The first thing that struck me was that there were few new insights from the educators.  On the other hand, the importance of positive relationships and the need to actively support the social and emotional well-being of young people ­ as a necessary condition for cognitive achievement ­ was reinforced again and again. This is not new knowledge but it is useful to be reminded how important these factors are if young people are to actually have the opportunity to reach their potential. These are qualities also needed by 21^st century educationalists, as argued by Christopher (May 18).

There were two ideas that I thought might contribute to our discussion, both of which focus on the nature of the curriculum and pedagogy.  I will begin with the first idea which I think of as “opportunities to learn”. In this context there were two areas raised that gave me particular food for thought and I am sure many of you will be able to add insights that will extend the points made.

Drawing on current research into brain development, the neuroscientist Richard Davidson, argued that as the brain is plastic, and will change in response to experience, education literally changes a child’s brain, its function and structure. This is particularly true in the early years but is also true during adolescence (and as we now know, it is actually never too late as brain cells continue to make new connections throughout life). However, an early investment is healthy brain development is better! In this context Davidson argued that a very important skill to learn was that of self regulation; the ability to regulate emotions. There are times where having  negative emotion is a helpful response but not if it persists beyond the point it is useful. He gave the example of a student having an argument between classes and suggested that if the negative emotion is still lingering in the next class it will interfere with the ability to learn. If these kind of disruptive events happen frequently then the opportunity to learn will be seriously impaired. He also pointed out that in the last 100 years the average age for the onset of puberty has gone from 16 to 11 (in some cultures). However, one of the parts of our brain – the prefrontal cortex ­ is not fully mature until early 20s. So this gives a lengthy time in which the capacity of the brain to regulate emotions is not as well developed which led Davidson to pose the question “can we teach our children to better regulate their emotions, to recover from adversity more quickly”? His research suggests that a productive avenue to pursue is interventions derived from contemplative practices which can assist regulate emotions and make for more steady attention (this might be as simple as having quiet times during the day or taking a more formal approach such as meditation). He also suggested that qualities such as empathy, calmness, and cooperation are best seen as skills that can be taught and learnt and not as fixed personality characteristics. Other speakers also cited research that showed that practices that support social and emotional learning have a positive impact on academic achievement. The point was made that there is a need to practice these ways of being, as the state a mind is in on a daily basis will become its “normal” state.

The second area was also one related to supporting the opportunity to learn. One of the other speakers, the psychologist Nancy Eisenberg, apart from also reinforcing the importance of young people being nurtured through positive relationships, explored the importance of emotional regulation as well – and ways educators might support learning to self regulate. Her research indicates the importance of adults modelling such practices and using reasoning to talk through issues and emotional responses as this helps young people to learn to manage themselves positively. A negative practice, she argued, was to take a punitive approach as then the young person only focuses on themselves and their punishment and doesn’t learn about the consequences of their actions on others.

Both these examples reinforce the importance of an education that is holistic ­ that provides the opportunity for students to be educated as cognitive and emotional, ethical and social beings whose lives are deeply interconnected with others. It is a reminder that developing particular habits of mind are just as important as developing cognitively, well in that these are intertwined.  Educators have long understood the importance of educating the whole person and this is an approach that is evident in curricula that emphasise knowledge and competencies (as described in the New Zealand curriculum). It is interesting to see the growing evidence from other disciplines of the importance of these competencies for any learning. It is also an ongoing challenge to develop ways of supporting students to actually develop their competencies so they are truly prepared to deal with, learn, and thrive, in the complex world in which they live. I know there are many schools that are already supporting students to learn “habits of mind” and that they have been doing so for many years. It is a timely reminder that such learning is just as important – and perhaps more so ­ in the context of a 21^st century framework.

Robyn Shifting schooling dispositions, key competencies, learning