SMART SOCIAL NETWORKING: 21st CENTURY TEACHING AND LEARNING SKILLS

21stcentury learners must possess both self‐direction and an ability to collaborate with individuals,
groups,and machines (McCoog , 2008). Social networking is built on the idea of how people know should
know and interact with each other (Zaidieh, 2012). Social networking enable pre-service teachers
integrate technology into teaching and learning. In addition, it will capacitate them to be socially aware
of the problems of the students. Electronic social‐ networking services such as MySpace and especially
Facebook have rapidly earned fame. Ractham and Firpo (2011) as cited in Zaidieh (2012) stress that
the model of the web as a decentralized search engine to search information or communicate with
others is becoming obsolete. In addition, he mentioned that the most famous in the world of social
networks are Facebook (Facebook.com) and Twitter (Twitter.com) and MySpace (myspace.com) and
others.

Education in the 21stcentury highlights globalization and internationalization. Any advancement

of technology presents theoretical constructs and realistic insights in the development and
enhancement of knowledge, skills, and attitudes among students and teachers (Abao, Dayagbil, &
Boholano, 2015). Eijkman (2009) as cited in Abao et al (2015), with social media, educators can now
much more readily connect their students not just in their own localities, their places of learning, and to
each other, but also to a huge and ever expanding diversity of social, cultural, political networks and
therefore to multiple ways of being knowing and communicating. Paquet (2003) as cited in Duffy and
Bruns (2006) mentions that blog refers to the term ‘blog’, initiated by Barger in 1997, as a log of the web
— or weblog.

The social network sites focus heavily on building online communities bound to together with
common interests or activities (Zaidieh, 2012). Thereby provide preservice with tools that help them to
do so. In the field of E‐Learning, the social network sites can be used to communicate and discussed
topics online. As revealed by Boholano (2013), ICT does not automatically improve teaching and
learning, teachers have to do something in order to motivate learners.The improvement of the teaching
learning process depends on the strategies used by the teacher. Technology will help teachers facilitate
effective teaching.Lombardi (2007) reveals Social networking tools such as del.icio.us, or citation
management tools for researchers such as Connotea, can help learners find a broader community willing
to share information and references. In Lampe (2007) it is stated that Facebook allows for two types of
“friendship” links: with users at the same institution or with users at other institutions (now called
"networks"). In the same study, it was stated that the categories “About Me,” “Interests,” and
“Favorites” are the most open fields available to Facebook users, with users able to articulate many
preferences that shape the public persona they are trying to present to others Learners face some
difficulty through social networking in expressing their views and ideas in writing, as many learners
prefer to express their ideas orally which is approach they have used for many years through their study,
while e‐education users need to be acquire to writing skills to express their ideas and opinions freely
(Zaidieh, 2012). The basic education institutions in the Philippines acknowledge that they must move
quickly with the technology driven changes in society and economy (Boholano, 2013). Educators can use
Web‐based communication tools to help students collaborate with one another, sharing and
constructing knowledge (Lombardi, 2007). Bell (2010) cited that children solve real‐world problems by
designing their own inquiries, planning their learning, organizing their research, and implementing a
multitude of learning strategies. The increasing use of Wiki is mostly for learning resources and
collaborative projects and assignments. Berinstein (2009) as cited in Liu (2010) divulge that Wikipedia
exemplifies a fascinating new paradigm. It is open to everyone, not only to read, but also to create and
maintain, and governed primarily by community consensus. Cheong (2002) as cited in Zaidieh
(2012)states that the social networking is easy and quick in term of accessing accessibility, reviewing,
updating, and editing learning material needs anytime and anywhere. Microblogging is a Web2.0
technology, and a new form of blogging that let the users publish online brief text updates, usually less
then 140‐200 characters, sometimes images too (Grosseck & Holotescu, 2008).

The success of social media environments rests on the correct balance of these elements (Burke,
Marlow & Lento, 2009). According to Vie (2008) compositionists have attempted to move beyond these
instrumental views of technology in examining the digital divide and in doing so have raised important
questions about the larger societal issues connected to the issues of technological literacy and access. In
line with this, the pre‐service teachers used technology in instruction. McCoog (2008) argue that to
acquire 21st century skills, students must be encouraged to create new ideas, evaluate and analyze the
material presented, and apply that knowledge to their previous academic experiences. Saha and
Mukherjee (2003) cited that project devices are highly optimized to particular tasks so that they blend
into the world and require little technical knowledge on the user’s part. Universities are losing their grip
on higher learning as the Internet is, inexorably, becoming the dominant infrastructure for knowledge —
both as a container and as a global platform for knowledge exchange between people — and as a new
generation of students requires a very different model of higher education (Tapscott & Williams, 2010).
Since YouTube’s rise to Internet prominence is a fairly recent development, substantive scholarly work
into the effects online video streaming can have in an EFL classroom is fairly sparse (Watkins & Wilkins,
2011). Students say they are motivated by solving real‐world problems (Lombardi, 2007). In the same
study, technology is also providing access to phenomena that might otherwise remain opaque to many
novices, particularly so‐called experiential learners. Pre‐service teachers must possess the 21st century
skills in social networking. Lombardi (2007) discloses that authentic learning can rely on educational
software developed to simulate typical scenarios that professionals encounter in real‐world settings.
Students may use a wiki to share knowledge or blog with other students to troubleshoot during the
process segment of their projects (Bell, 2010).Integrating pervasive computing components has severe
reliability, quality of service, invisibility, and security implications for pervasive networking (Saha &
Mukherjee, 2003).Roberts, Foehr, and Rideout (2005) as cited in Pempek, Yermolayeva and Calvert
(2009) mentions that Media use provides an important backdrop for the social, emotional, and cognitive
development of youth, accounting for a large portion of their time. Face to face interaction must be
replaced to online activities. Technology trainers are a good option to ease the transition to 21st century
teaching (McCoog, 2008). In Williams and Jacod (2004), blog is said to be a writing a blog assists here
because it forces a student to confront their own opinions and contemplate how their views might be
interpreted and reflected upon by others (Mortensen & Walker, 2002, cited in Lamshed, Berry &
Armstrong, 2002; in Williams and Jacob, 2004). Breaden (2008) s cited in McCoog (2008) contends that
technology specialist handles researching current trends in education technology, creating professional
development opportunities, and supporting teachers in 21st century efforts. It is said that Students have
long learned as much from each other as they have from an instructor or a textbook ‐ it's just a
question of finding an appropriate vehicle for facilitating this learning (Williams and Jacob, 2004). In the
Philippines, many important reforms of teacher education that have been undertaken since 2000 to
enhance teaching and learning.
21ST CENTURY LEARNING: RESEARCH, INNOVATION AND POLICY DIRECTIONS FROM RECENT OECD
ANALYSES

Rationales for Closer Focus on Learning and on Change

The Need for Lifelong Learning

The inevitability of lifelong learning in knowledge-oriented societies implies that school systems should
have different objectives and characteristics than if education were considered to have been completed
when a student leaves initial education. Yet in practice, there remains a tendency for school education
to be assessed in terms of the achievements and targets that systems have set themselves, rather than
their broader success in laying the foundation for lifelong learning.

In the knowledge economy, memorization of facts and procedures is not enough for success.
Educated workers need a conceptual understanding of complex concepts, and the ability to work with
them creatively to generate new ideas, new theories, new products, and new knowledge. They need to
be able critically to evaluate what they read, be able to express themselves clearly both verbally and in
writing, and understand scientific and mathematical thinking. They need to learn integrated and usable
knowledge, rather than the sets of compartmentalised and de-contextualised facts. They need to be
able to take responsibility for their own continuing, life-long learning.

What PISA has to say

According to PISA, school systems are not outstandingly successful in preparing students for the
kinds of abilities and skills that build the foundation for lifelong learning. PISA attainments shed light on
this question as they are based on a dynamic model “in which new knowledge and skills necessary for
successful adaptation to a changing world are continuously acquired throughout life” (PISA, 2003b),
rather than measuring achievement in terms of specific curricula. With its focus on reading,
mathematical and scientific “literacy”, PISA emphasises the mastery of processes, the understanding of
concepts, and the ability to function in different situations in each domain, rather than the possession of
specific knowledge.1

For instance, in only 5 OECD countries do more than two-thirds of young people reach or
surpass PISA level 3 in reading literacy - the level which involves comprehension and interpretation of
moderately complex text. (The 5 countries are: Canada, Finland, Ireland, Korea, and New Zealand.) The
average across OECD countries is 57.1% attaining level 3 or above. In 17 OECD countries, 40% or more
do not achieve at the level 3 threshold in reading literacy, and these low-performing students are in the
majority in four of these countries. The countries which have 40% or more achieving at best at level 2
are Austria, the Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy,
Luxembourg, Mexico, Norway, Portugal, the Slovak Republic, Spain, Turkey, and the United Kingdom.
They are the majority of students in Greece, Italy, Mexico, Portugal, the Slovak Republic, Spain, and
Turkey. [PISA2006, Chapter 6] Regarding problem-solving, around a fifth of the students in all OECD
countries in 2003 could be considered “reflective, communicative problem-solvers”, who are able to
analyse a situation, make decisions and manage multiple conditions simultaneously, with just under a
third being ”reasoning, decision-making problem-solvers” and a third counted as ”basic problem
solvers”. This leaves around 16 % considered as “weak or emergent problem-solvers”, who are generally
unable to analyse situations or solve problems that call for more than the direct collection of
information.

Hence, the PISA results provide a prime facie case in that too many students are not well
prepared for the knowledge society in terms of the different literacies and problem-solving abilities.
These arguments are supported by many analysts working in the learning sciences.

The Learning Sciences Argument

When learning scientists (Sawyer, 2006) first went into classrooms, they discovered that most
schools were not teaching the deep knowledge that underlies knowledge work. By the 1980s, cognitive
scientists had discovered that children retain material better, and are able to generalise it to a broader
range of contexts, when they learn deep knowledge rather than surface knowledge, and when they
learn how to use that knowledge in real-world social and practical settings. Thus, learning scientists
began to argue that standard model schools were not aligned with the knowledge economy. A set of key
findings has emerged from learning sciences research: the importance of learning deeper conceptual
understanding, rather than superficial facts and procedures, the importance of learning connected and
coherent knowledge, rather than knowledge compartmentalized into distinct subjects and courses, the
importance of learning authentic knowledge in its context of use, rather than decontextualized
classroom exercises and the importance of learning collaboratively, rather than in isolation. Traditional
models of schooling which are not in line with these key findings and, so runs this argument, are thus
not well suited to our knowledge economies and societies. Therefore, learning scientists are calling for a
change of today‟s schools.

The Call for New Approaches from „Schooling for Tomorrow‟

A radical change with a strong focus on learning has not only been called for by learning
scientists, but also by some very near to policy-making at different times in the Schooling for Tomorrow
programme. The keynote address of Michael Barber to the 2000 Rotterdam Conference, for instance,
argued from newdriving forces to new models in the following terms:

The explosion of knowledge about the brain and the nature of learning, combined with the
growing power of technology, create the potential to transform even the most fundamental unit
of education - the interaction of the teacher and the learner. Moreover, huge social changes,
such as growing diversity and population mobility, present educators with new and constantly
changing circumstances. As a result, the characteristics which defined the successful education
systems of, say, 1975, are unlikely to be those which will define success in the future. (OECD
2003a: 115)
 More recently, the need to search for new approaches was articulated forcefully in the
conclusions of the Toronto Schooling for Tomorrow Forum in June 2004, especially by one of the
Canadian rapporteurs,Raymond Daigle:

For the past 15 years or so, a number of industrialised countries have been implementing
sweeping and costly reforms. Although there was some real initial progress, these reforms have
ultimately come up against a wall, or rather a ceiling, beyond which further progress seems
impossible, leading increasing numbers of school administrators and educators to wonder
whether schools do not need to be reformed but to be reinvented. (OECD 2006a: 187-188)

Like Barber‟s focus on the interaction of teacher and learner, Daigle talks about the micro level
– the organisation of teaching and learning in the place we call „the school‟. He does not suppose that
„the school‟ is necessarily an institution of formal schooling; for if it is to be reinvented it can refer to all
number of arrangements through which organised, deliberate learning might take place.

The views of these particular commentators of the need for different approaches to education
– „reinvention‟ in Daigle‟s words – share the fundamental belief and are in line with the argument of
the learning scientists that the most fruitful area to search for new approaches will lie in close attention
to the nature of learning itself.

Insights from CERI and Related OECD Studies on Learning

There have been a number of projects in the Education Directorate of the OECD and in CERI in
particular that give insights on learning and provide directions for educational change that is focussing
on learning. The projects and their main findings will be presented in this section.

The Neuro-scientific Study of Learning

The purpose of the CERI project on “Learning Sciences and Brain Research” was to encourage
collaboration between learning sciences and brain research on the one hand, and researchers and policy
makers on the other hand. It has produced two important publications (see: OECD 2002 and 2007), as
well as resulted in intensive collaboration, networking and dialogue.

On many questions, neuroscience builds on the conclusions of existing knowledge from other
sources, such as psychological study, classroom observation or achievement surveys. But the neuro-
scientific contribution is important as it opens up understanding of „causation‟ not just „correlation‟
and so can help identify effective interventions and solutions. Neuroscience is also generating new
knowledge, opening up new avenues. Without understanding the brain, for instance, it would not be
possible to know about different patterns of brain activities, e.g. why certain learning difficulties are
apparent in particular students even when they seem to be coping well with other educational
demands.

The understanding of literacy in the brain is one important area where brain research can
inform reading instruction. The dual importance in the brain of sounds and phonological processing, on
the one hand, and the direct processing of semantics or meanings, on the other, can inform the classic
debate between top-down and bottom-up approaches – “whole language” text immersion and the
development of phonetic skills, respectively. Learning sciences have also charted the inverse
relationship between age and the effectiveness of learning many aspects of language – in general, the
younger the age of exposure, the more successful the second- or third-language learning. This is at odds
with the education policies of numerous countries where foreign language instruction does not begin
until adolescence. This is a good example where learning science confronts educational practice to ask
whether attention to the evidence base calls for significant change to conventional practice.

The study of the brain also highlights the importance of emotions. Emotional states induced by
fear or stress directly affect learning and memory. Brain studies have illuminated how negative
emotions block learning and have identified the amygdala, the hippocampus and stress hormones, as
playing a crucial role in mediating the effects of negative emotions on learning and memory. Some level
of stress is essential for optimal adaptation to environmental challenges and can lead to better cognition
and learning, but beyond this modicum it activates responses in the brain associated with flight and
survival and inhibits those responsible for analytical capacity. Hence if the student is faced with sources
of stress in an educational context which go beyond the positive challenge threshold – for instance,
aggressive teachers, bullying students, or incomprehensible learning materials whether books or
computers – it triggers fear and cognitive function is negatively affected. Therefore, it might end up
showing that concepts which place emotional factors to the fore in various forms of “alternative
schooling”, which had previously been grasped intuitively or philosophically, may in fact have very sound
neuro-scientific underpinnings. One of the most surprising elements to emerge from the recent report
on „Understanding the Brain‟ concerns the more general, practical issue of how the science of learning
should be applied in education. Beyond informing general policy and practice, the eventual application
of the results of neuroscience to individual learners may be highly beneficial in order to find out such
matters as whether a student really does comprehend certain material, or about their levels of
motivation or anxiety. Used properly, this individual focus may add fundamentally powerful diagnostic
tools to the process of formative assessment and personalised learning, as discussed above. At the same
time, studies of the brain show that individual characteristics are far from fixed – there is constant
interaction between genetic function and experience and plasticity, such that the notion of an
individual‟s talents/capacity – as if this were fixed and open to scientific scrutiny - should be treated
with considerable caution.

Personalised learning

The aim of “personalising learning” is of growing prominence in thinking and policy discussion in
some countries. It springs from awareness that “one-size-fits-all” approaches to school knowledge and
organisation are ill-adapted to individuals‟ needs and to the knowledge society at large. This emerging
idea is that systems capable of achieving universally high standards are those that can personalise the
programme of learning and progression offered to the needs and motivations of each learner.
Personalisation can mean adopting a more holistic, person-centred approach to learner development, as
well as more demand-driven, market-friendly approaches to system change. In part, it reflects a change
in social climate, driven by the affluence and value change that arise from sustained economic growth.
 The degree of interest is reflected in the recent OECD/CERI publication, “Personalising
Education”, [OECD, 2006(b)]. Sanna Jarvela‟s contribution to that volume summarises some of the
findings of research into the nature of learning and aims for education, which the personalisation
agenda addresses:

 Collaborative efforts and networked forms of expertise are increasingly needed in the future
knowledge society.

 Students need to be able to develop their personal learning needs and individual expertise in the
areas which they either feel incompetent or they want to increase their existing expertise.

 Curiosity and creativity are increasingly essential.

 Learning is developed through explicit learning strategies, learning to learn skills, technological
capacities for individual and social learning activities, and through learning communities with
collaborative learning models.

 Learning needs to be sensitive to contextual conditions, different values and cultural features.

 When technology is seen as an intelligent tool for supporting individual learning, as well as
collaborative learning among different individuals, there are multiple ways to expand potential in
every student.

Assessment for Learning - Formative Assessment

Assessment for learning may be viewed as an essential element of more personalised

approaches to education. It refers to assessment of student progress that is an ongoing part of everyday
teaching, rather than a special event. Like other approaches which place learning at the centre – such as
mastery learning or intensive tutoring – they have been associated with significant gains in achievement.
As well as promising to raise standards, such approaches address equity head on. They do so through
the individualisation of teaching and learning strategies and through the continual identification of and
responses to students who are experiencing difficulties. Moreover, these approaches are explicitly about
developing cultures of learning in schools and classrooms. Yet, they receive far less prominence than
conventional forms of assessment such as achievement tests and examinations which are much more in
the “one-size-fits-all” mode. All this helps to explain the interest of formative assessment to CERI (OECD
2005a).

Formative assessment is designed to provide teachers and students with critical information
about learning needs, help students to assess their progress towards learning goals, and guide teachers
to vary their teaching according to needs and goals. It can include data from a number of sources such
as classroom interactions, as well as more conventional forms of assessment such as tests and
examinations. It provides ways of responding to the aims of enhancing learning and augmenting teacher
professionalism rather than assuming that the act of assessment itself, providing summary measures of
achievement levels, is tantamount to improvement. Some of the core methods and practices of
formative assessment are useful to note as potentially framing elements in enhancing the role of
learning in innovation.

“New Millennium Learners”

The CERI project entitled “New Millennium Learners” investigates the effects of digital
technologies on school-age learners. The project examines the characteristics of learners and the impact
of their sustained use of digital devices and services. Surprisingly little is known about the effects of
technologies on cognitive skills, outside of areas related to visual-spatial skills and nonverbal forms of
intelligence. The influence of technology use on reasoning capability and judgment has been shown to
be relatively small, while there are many studies regarding the influence of technology use on abilities
related to information processing, reflective and critical thinking, creativity and, in general, meta-
cognitive skills. However, no research review has documented a positive effect yet on the basis of
empirical research. It may be that this shows the need for a “neuroscience of children and media”
intended to research the impact of digital media on children‟s brain development, a need that has only
been expressed very recently (C.A. Anderson, 2007).

Studies carried out with pre-adolescent children so far seem to indicate the importance of two
factors: first, the impulse to experiment and discover, and the consequent lack of fear, that
characterises the exploratory behaviour of children at a young age; and second, the predisposition to
emulate adults‟ behaviour. The latter relates in turn to the issue of gender differences of technology use
and the consequent impact this might have in education, both at home and in schools. Hence the
relevance of this work for enhancing creativity – the natural dispositions of young people to experiment
with ICT – alongside constraining factors (in this case the role models provided by too many adults and
the discouraging cultures of too many schools). An issue of competing policy discourses has been
identified in the work of “New Millennium Learners”. On the one hand, there is the discourse which
claims that the real educational benefits of using ICTs are to be seen in domains such as team-working,
creativity, problem-solving and the like, in ways very close to the subject of this paper. Yet so long as
these are not central to (or even recognised in!) assessment systems such as national examinations, the
potential for realising such benefits will always be severely constrained. The second discourse focuses
on the factors with a demonstrated impact on boosting educational performance as measured in
existing national and international surveys. And, as yet, there is insufficient evidence that ICT use does
have an incontrovertible impact on standards so undermining, for those wedded to this discourse, the
educational arguments for imaginative ICT use in schools.

However, no-one should expect each and every use of ICT to have a positive learning impact –
focusing the question back onto the ways in which ICT is used, in which circumstances, for which
students etc – and asking for incontrovertible evidence of the benefits of ICT in a learning society may
be no more sensible than to ask for the evidence about the value of books before buying any for
schools.
PISA on Approaches to Learning

The PISA findings show that there is a positive association between students‟ performance and
their approaches to learning, such as their motivation to learn, their beliefs about their own abilities and
their learning strategies. These learning approaches are not only associated with success but can also be
viewed as an educational outcome on its own: once students leave school, they have to manage most of
their own learning. To do this, they need to be able to establish goals, to persevere, to monitor their
learning process, to adjust their learning strategies as necessary and to overcome difficulties in learning.
Students who leave school with the autonomy to set their own learning goals are better equipped to
become successful lifelong learners. PISA shows that there is a large variation in learner characteristics
among students in each school. Relatively few schools succeed in promoting particularly strong
approaches to learning among their students. This underlines the importance for schools and teachers
to be able to engage constructively with heterogeneity not only in student abilities but also in their
characteristics as learners and their approaches to learning.

PISA shows how important positive approaches to learning are for successful and lifelong
learning. As argued above, they give rise to concern that many countries are not well prepared for the
knowledge society in terms of the literacy and problem solving abilities of their next generation. Thus it
is legitimate to ask the question, if the traditional way of learning in many countries, is adequate for the
21st century world.

Exemplary Designs for Learning

The OECD‟s Programme for Educational Building (PEB) periodically conducts a selection of educational
designs to help the planners of educational facilities know what is possible through showcasing leading
international examples (OECD 2006c). The international PEB jury chooses the facilities featured in the
publication for their fitness for educational purpose, with the new designs fitting one or more of the
criteria described below. The facilities‟ construction, design or use is judged to be noteworthy and to
contribute to educational quality. Included are newly built or renovated buildings, extensions or
grounds.

Flexibility is the main criterion used which is of interest to this report. This is understood to
mean that buildings or grounds are adapted to new forms of learning and research; institutions that
make special use of information and communications technology; or special educational facilities.
Characteristics include transformable learning spaces, student-centredness, problem-based learning
facilities, or provision for students with physical, learning or behavioural difficulties or for “at-risk”
students (those whose educational needs arise primarily from socio-economic, cultural or linguistic
factors)

There are other criteria considered by the jury. One is community needs: institutions that
encourage community involvement and/or access by giving multiple stakeholders the opportunity to
participate in their design, planning or day-to-day management; by catering to lifelong learning; or by
sharing the facilities with students‟ families or others. Another is sustainability: facilities that
demonstrate special consideration for the environment through the efficient use of energy, choice of
materials, local or natural resources, siting or management. Safety and security is a further criterion, as
is alternative financing, of capital expenditure (including the use of private financing), or buildings whose
life-cycle costs are sustainable.
21st Century Skills for Students and Teachers

This literature review synthesizes published works on 21st century learning skills. There has
been a significant shift over the last century from manufacturing to emphasizing information and
knowledge services. Knowledge itself is growing ever more specialized and expanding exponentially.
Information and communication technology is transforming how we learn and the nature of how work is
conducted and the meaning of social relationships. Shared decision-making, information sharing,
collaboration, innovation, and speed are essential in today’s enterprises. No longer can students look
forward to middle class success in the conduct of manual labor or use of routine skills – work that can be
accomplished by machines or easily out-sourced to less expensive labor markets. Today, much success
lies in being able to communicate, share, and use information to solve complex problems, in being able
to adapt and innovate in response to new demands and changing circumstances, in being able to
command and expand the power of technology to create new knowledge. Hence, new standards for
what students should be able to do are replacing the basic skill competencies and knowledge
expectations of the past. To meet this challenge schools must be transformed in ways that will enable
students to acquire the creative thinking, flexible problem solving, collaboration and innovative skills
they will need to be successful in work and life. Some authors (Carroll, 2007; Burmack, 2002; Riddle,
2009; Frey & Fisher, 2008; Elkins, 2007; Trilling & Fidel, 2009) and organizations (Partnership for 21st
Century Learning; National Science Foundation, Educational Testing Services, NCREL, Metiri Group, etc.)
argue that 21st Century Learning Skills, the subject of this literature review, are critical for accomplishing
the necessary transformation. The Partnership for 21st Century Skills (www.21stcenturyskills.com) has
developed a framework for 21st century learning, which describes the skills that students need to thrive
in today’s global economy. The North Central Regional Education Laboratory (NCREL) and the Metiri
Group have also identified a framework for 21st century skills, which is organized into four categories:
digital age literacies, inventive thinking, effective communication, and high productivity.1 This literature
review is organized in line with the framework developed by the Partnership for 21st Century Learning
Skills.2 The literature review begins by defining 21st century learning skills, and then moves to address
“Core Themes and Subjects,” “Learning and Innovation Skills,” “Life and Career Skills,” and “Information,
Media, and Technology Skills.” The review concludes with discussions of 21st century support systems.

How are 21st Century Learning Skills Defined?

The Educational Testing Service (ETS) in its publication, Digital Transformation: A Literacy
Framework for ICT Literacy (2007), defines 21st century learning skills as the ability to a) collect and/or
retrieve information, b) organize and manage information, c) evaluate the quality, relevance, and
usefulness of information, and d) generate accurate information through the use of existing resources.
NCREL identifies broader 21st century skills as achieving 21st century learning through digital age
literacy, inventive thinking, effective communication, and high productivity. The Partnership for 21st
century skills identifies six key elements for fostering 21st century learning: 1) emphasize core subjects,
2) emphasize learning skills, 3) use 21st century tools to develop learning skills, 4) teach and learn in a
21st century context, 5) teach and learn 21st century content, and 6) use 21st century assessments that
measure 21st century skills.
What are 21st Century Learning Skills?

21st Century Core Subjects and Themes Traditional education models have often focused on
learning identified content for subject areas (i.e. math, science, language arts, and social studies), and
then assessing this content knowledge with quizzes, and tests at the end of a chapter or learning
module. Desired outcomes within 21st century learning frameworks include learning traditional school
subject and contemporary content themes in combination with the interdisciplinary 21st century
themes. The core subjects and themes that frame 21st century learning include traditional core subjects
while emphasizing civic literacy, global awareness, financial literacy, health literacy, and environmental
literacy.

Civic literacy

Civic literacy speaks to the need for students to be able to understand and influence civic
decision-making. This theme focuses on the importance of staying informed and understanding
governmental processes, being able to participate in civic life, and recognizing the local and global
implications of civic decisions. Donald Lazare’s recent text, Reading and Writing for Civic Literacy: The
Critical Citizen’s Guide to Argumentative Rhetoric (2005) addresses a documented need for students to
develop critical reading, writing, and thinking skills for participation in civic society. Lazare provides a
number of lesson plans and classroom exercises for teachers to help students understand the ideological
positions and the rhetorical patterns that underlie opposing viewpoints in current political debates.

Global awareness

The global awareness theme speaks to the need for students to be able to learn from and work
collaboratively with individuals from diverse cultures, religions, ideologies, and lifestyles in an
environment of openness and mutual respect. This theme also references the ways in which students
utilize 21st century skills to understand and engage with global issues and diverse learning communities.
A nationwide poll of registered voters conducted in 2007 by the Partnership for 21st Century Skills,
found that Americans are deeply concerned that the United States is not preparing young people with
the skills they need to compete in the global economy (P21, 2007). Gragert (2001) concurred, arguing
that international collaborative problem solving is beneficial for students. In his study, Gragert noted
that students who participated in international collaborative e-learning projects showed heightened
motivation in class, improved reading and writing skills, and enhanced engagement. Adams & Carfagna
(2006) argues that cross-cultural deliberation through Web 2.0 technologies helps to break down
stereotypical notions regarding cultures other than one’s own.

Financial literacy

Financial literacy speaks to the set of skills individuals need to make informed economic
decisions. Research indicates that there is considerable deficiency in financial literacy among students
and adults in the United States. Findings from the Jump$tart Coalition’s biennial financial literacy tests
of high school seniors in the contiguous United States show that students correctly answered 50 percent
of the questions in 2002 (Jump$tart Coalition, 2002). Similarly, the Institute of Certified Financial
Planners, in a survey of Certified Financial Planners (CFP) found that financial literacy is a major problem
when it comes to making individual financial decisions. Other studies find that low-income consumers,
those with less education, and African Americans and Hispanics also tend to have below-average
financial literacy scores. In recent years, supporters of financial education, defined as knowledge that
helps people make sound, informed financial decisions (Hopley, 2003), has been reinforced by the
findings of studies that show that financial literacy training has had a positive impact on financial
knowledge (Hilgert, Hogarth, & Beverly, 2003; Danes, Huddleston-Casas, & Boyce, 1999; Barrese,
Garner, & Thrower, 1998). Braunstein & Welch (2002) argue, however, that an increase in financial
knowledge does not necessarily translate into improved financial behavior. Instead, they contend that
causality may be reversed since people may gain knowledge as they save and accumulate wealth, or
there may be a third influence, namely, family experiences and economic socialization, that affects both
knowledge and behavior. Further examination of the relationship between the nature of economic
socialization and financial literacy is much needed. An emergent body of research suggests that poor job
attendance and performance may be linked more closely to financial distress than to demographics
(e.g., age, gender, and/ or income) (Braunstein & Welch, 2002; Mandell, 1997). Financial education has
been shown not only to enhance students’ knowledge levels, but also to have a lasting positive impact
on their financial behaviors. As schools work to prepare graduates to be effective workers, financial
competency (i.e., managing money, understanding banking, using credit wisely, understanding taxes and
insurance, understanding investing and homeownership, and understanding the implications of
consumer fraud and identity theft) is an important curricular objective to consider.

Health literacy

The emphasis on health literacy addresses the need for individuals to be able to access and use
high quality information to make health-related decisions. This includes a working knowledge of ways to
access health information and services and a working knowledge of preventative health measures.
Safeer & Keenan (2005) argue that inadequate health literacy can result in “difficulty accessing health
care, following instructions from a physician, and taking medication properly. Berkman et. al. (2004)
published a report on literacy and health outcomes that was requested by the American Medical
Association and funded by the AHRQ. This report addresses two key questions: Are literacy skills related
to: (a) Use of health care services? (b) Health outcomes? (c) Costs of health care? (d) Disparities in
health outcomes or health care service use according to race, ethnicity, culture, or age? For individuals
with low literacy skills, what are effective interventions to: (a) Improve use of health care services? (b)
Improve health outcomes? (c) Affect the costs of health care? (d) Improve health outcomes and/or
health care service use among different racial, ethnic, cultural, or age groups? In 2003, the National
Center for Education Statistics published The Health Literacy of America’s Adults: Results from the 2003
National Assessment of Adult Literacy. This represented the first release of the National Assessment of
Adult Literacy (NAAL) health literacy results. The results are based on assessment tasks designed
specifically to measure the health literacy of adults living in the United States. For the purposes of this
study, health literacy was reported using four performance levels: Below Basic, Basic, Intermediate, and
Proficient. The majority of adults (53 percent) had Intermediate health literacy. About 22 percent had
Basic and 14 percent had Below Basic health literacy. Relationships between health literacy and
background variables (such as educational attainment, age, race/ethnicity, where adults get information
about health issues, and health insurance coverage) were also examined and reported (NCES, 2003). The
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion’s
Quick Guide to Health Literacy provides a basic overview of key health literacy concepts and techniques
for improving health literacy through communication, navigation, knowledge-building, and advocacy. It
also provides the information for teachers and administrators to become effective advocates for
improved health literacy

Environmental literacy

In January 2003, the National Science Foundation released a report of its Advisory Committee
for Environmental Research and Education. The Committee found that “in the coming decades, the
public will more frequently be called upon to understand complex environmental issues, assess risk,
evaluate proposed environmental plans and understand how individual decisions affect the
environment at local and global scales.” The authors argued that environmentally literate individuals at
the start of the 21st century will need to be able to understand and discuss both man-made and natural
environmental issues and propose or debate alternative solutions to these problems. Two years later,
the National Environmental Education & Training Foundation, concluded in a national survey,
Environmental Literacy in America 2005, that “while the simplest forms of environmental knowledge are
widespread, public comprehension of more complex environmental subjects is very limited.”
Environmental literacy, in 2010, for the first time, has been included in the U.S. Department of
Education budget. In response to this Obama administration initiative, Senator Jack Reed responded,
“This budget takes an important step toward boosting environmental education in the classroom and
giving more kids the opportunity to get out and learn about the natural world around them.
Environmental education can help raise student achievement in other core subjects like math and
science. This is a smart investment in our children’s future and the future of our planet.” David Orr,
describes the need for and debate over environmental literacy in his book Ecological Literacy: “The crisis
of sustainability and the problems of education are in large measure a crisis of knowledge. But is the
problem as is commonly believed, that we do not know enough? Or that we know too much? or that we
do not enough about some things and too much about other things? Or is it that our scientific methods
are in some ways flawed? Is it that we have forgotten things we need to remember? Or is it that we
have forgotten other ways of knowing that lie in the realm of vision, intuition, revelation, empathy, or
even common sense? Such questions are not asked often enough.....” [Orr 155] Orr cites Garrett
Hardin’s definition of ecological literacy as “the ability to ask ‘What then?’” Hardin also cites the ability
to read and calculate (literacy and numeracy), ecological literacy (the intimate knowledge of our
landscapes, and an affinity for the living world). Orr, states that teachers need to both present the
environmental issues in terms of systems and in an interdisciplinary fashion. This approach does not
allow for the simplification of problems to a level where their connections to the context (i.e., land,
water, environment, sense of place) are lost. Orr faults analytical modes of teaching that abstract
problems from the context in the perceived interest of clarity and simplicity. He believes that this clarity
is deceptive, because, devoid of context--and hence apparent relevance--the ideas do not stay with the
students – they are not made relevant and connected to their daily lived life (Orr, 1992). Stephen
Schneider (1997) argues that we should not expect students to gain a detailed knowledge about the
content of all environmentally relevant disciplines. Instead, he proposes that students should be taught
how to ask three questions to teachers/experts that include “what can happen,” “what are the odds,”
and “how do you know.” He argues that students do not need to know the technical aspects of opposing
views, but they should have the skill to evaluate the credibility of processes and arguments. Schneider
(1997) defines environmental literacy as the capability for a contextual and detailed understanding of an
environmental problem in order to enable analysis, synthesis, evaluation, and ultimately sound and
informed decision-making at a citizen’s level. This means that “environmentally literate” students will
have the knowledge, tools, and sensitivity to properly address environmental problems, and to
conscientiously include the environment as one of the considerations in their work and daily living.
Environmental literacy is about practices, activities, and feelings grounded in familiarity and sound
knowledge (Orr, 1992; Schnieder, 1997). Just as reading becomes second nature to those who are
literate, interpreting and acting for the environment becomes second nature to the environmentally
literate citizen. Environmental literacy provides students with the ability to understand and utilize the
language of the environment, and respond to its grammar, literature, and rhetoric. It involves
understanding the underlying scientific principles, value systems, and the cultural, aesthetic, ethical and
emotional responses that the environment invokes. In the edited work, Teaching Environmental
Literacy: Across Campus and Across the Curriculum (2009) contributing scientists, policy-makers, artists,
and historians, as well as experts in law, economics, and language argue that environmental issues are
profoundly entwined with all aspects of society and should not be limited to a few science or science
policy classrooms. They argue that environmental literacy needs to be taught across the curriculum
(Reynolds, Brondizio, & Robinson, 2009). In 2008, The National Science Teachers Association published
Resources for Environmental Literacy: Five Teaching Modules for Middle and High School Teachers. This
resource collection focuses on biodiversity, genetically modified foods, earthquakes, volcanoes,
tsunamis, and global climate change. The authors state that the resource materials are designed to build
skills in critical thinking and analytical reasoning about complex issues. Likewise, Emma Wood Rous, in
her 2000 text, Literature and the Land: Reading and Writing for Environmental Literacy, 7-12, provides
pedagogical techniques and sample interdisciplinary lesson plans that support environmental literacy

Visual literacy

The graphic user interface of the internet and the convergence of voice, video, and data into a
common digital format have increased the use of visual imagery dramatically. Advances suchas smart
phones, digital cameras, graphics packages, streaming video, and common imagery standards, allow for
the use of visual imagery to communicate ideas. There is conflicting evidence regarding whether
younger and non-traditional learners prefer image-based over textual content for learning. Many
authors (Burmack, 2002; Riddle, 2009; Frey & Fisher, 2008; Elkins, 2007) argue that students need good
visualization skills to be able to decipher, interpret, detect patterns, and communicate using imagery. In
Visual Literacy: Learn to See, See to Learn, author Lynell Burmark claims that teaching visual literacy can
enhance student learning in K-12 classrooms and also improve students’ options in the workplace.
Burmark argues that with access to print materials and internet sites, an imagerich curriculum can reach
more students and teach them more quickly and meaningfully than traditional written student reports
and text-based, verbal instruction (Burmark, 2002). Some authors have cited a demand for textual
content, but after further investigation, the preference for textual content reflected low levels of access
to web-based content (Riddle, 2009).