Advertisement

Defining Twenty-First Century Skills

  • Marilyn Binkley
  • Ola Erstad
  • Joan Herman
  • Senta Raizen
  • Martin Ripley
  • May Miller-Ricci
  • Mike Rumble
Chapter

Abstract

As the previous chapter indicates, there has been a significant shift in advanced economies from manufacturing to information and knowledge services. Knowledge itself is growing ever more specialized and expanding exponentially. Information and communication technology is transforming the nature of how work is conducted and the meaning of social relationships. Decentralized decision making, information sharing, teamwork, and innovation are key 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. Rather, whether a technician or a professional person, 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 marshal and expand the power of technology to create new knowledge, and in expanding human capacity and productivity.

Keywords

Critical Thinking Assessment Task Information Literacy Critical Thinking Skill Civic Knowledge 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Ainley, J., Fraillon, J., & Freeman, C. (2005). National Assessment Program: ICT literacy years 6 & 10 report. Carlton South, Australia: The Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs (MCEETYA).Google Scholar
  2. Ainley, J., Pratt, D., & Hansen, A. (2006). Connecting engagement and focus in pedagogic task design. British Educational Research Journal, 32(1), 23–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anderson, R. (2009, April). A plea for ‘21st Century Skills’ white paper to include social and civic values. Memorandum to Assessment and Teaching of 21st Century Skills Conference, San Diego, CA.Google Scholar
  4. Baker, E. L. (2007). The end(s) of testing. Educational Researcher, 36(6), 309–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baker, M. J., & Lund, K. (1997). Promoting reflective interactions in a computer-supported collaborative learning environment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 13, 175–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Banaji, S., & Burn, A. (2007). Rhetorics of creativity. Commissioned by Creative Partnerships. Retrieved November 30, 2009 www.creative-partnerships.com/literaturereviews
  7. Bell, A., Burkhardt, H., & Swan, M. (1992). Balanced assessment of mathematical performance. In R. Lesh & S. Lamon (Eds.), Assessment of authentic performance in school mathematics. Washington, DC: AAAS.Google Scholar
  8. Bennett, R. E. (2002). Inexorable and inevitable: The continuing story of technology and assessment. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 1(1), 14–15.Google Scholar
  9. Bennett, R. E., & Gitomer, D. H. (2009). Transforming K-12 assessment. In C. Wyatt-Smith & J. Cumming (Eds.), Assessment issues of the 21st Century. New York: Springer Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  10. Bennett, R. E., Jenkins, F., Persky, H., & Weiss, A. (2003). Assessing complex problem solving performances. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 10, 347–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Black, P., McCormick, R., James, M., & Pedder, D. (2006). Learning how to learn and assessment for learning: A theoretical inquiry. Research Papers in Education, 21(2), 119–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education, 5(1), 7–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Boeijen, G., & Uijlings, P. (2004, July). Exams of tomorrow: Use of computers in Dutch national science exams. Paper presented at the GIREP Conference, Teaching and learning physics in new contexts, Ostrava, Czech Republic.Google Scholar
  14. Buckingham, D., & Willett, R. (Eds.). (2006). Digital generations: Children, young people, and new media. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  15. Burbules, N. C., & Silberman-Keller, D. (2006). Learning in places: The informal education reader. New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  16. Çakir, M. P., Zemel, A., & Stahl, G. (2009). The joint organization of interaction within a multimodal CSCL medium. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 4(2), 115–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cassell, J., Huffaker, D., Ferriman, K., & Tversky, D. (2006). The language of online leadership: Gender and youth engagement on the Internet. Developmental Psychology, 42(3), 436–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Castells, M. (1996). The rise of the network society (The information age: Economy, society and culture, Vol. 1). Cambridge: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  19. Cheng, L., Watanabe, Y., & Curtis, A. (Eds.). (2004). Washback in language testing: Research contexts and methods. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  20. Clift, S. (2002). 21st literacy summit white paper. Retrieved from www.mail-archive.com/do-wire@tc.umn.edu/msg00434.html
  21. Deakin Crick, R. D., Broadfoot, P., & Claxton, G. (2004). Developing an effective lifelong learning inventory: The ELLI project. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 11, 247–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Draper, S. W. (2009). Catalytic assessment: Understanding how MCQs and EVS can foster deep learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(2), 285–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ericsson, K. A. (2002). Attaining excellence through deliberate practice: Insights from the study of expert performance. In M. Ferrari (Ed.), The pursuit of excellence through education (pp. 21–55). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  24. Erstad, O. (2006). A new direction? Digital literacy, student participation and curriculum reform in Norway. Education and Information Technologies, 11(3–4), 415–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Erstad, O. (2008). Trajectories of remixing: Digital literacies, media production and schooling. In C. Lankshear & M. Knobel (Eds.), Digital literacies: Concepts, policies and practices (pp. 177–202). New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  26. Erstad, O. (2010). Conceptions of technology literacy and fluency. In International encyclopedia of education (3rd ed.). Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  27. Facione, P.A. (1990). Critical thinking: A statement of expert consensus for purposes of educational assessment and instruction (The Delphi Report). Millbrae: California Academic Press.Google Scholar
  28. Forster, M., & Masters, G. (2004). Bridging the conceptual gap between classroom assessment and system accountability. In M. Wilson (Ed.), Towards coherence between classroom assessment and accountability: 103rd Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  29. Friedman, T. (2007). The world is flat. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.Google Scholar
  30. Gardner, J. (Ed.). (2006). Assessment & learning. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  31. Gee, J. P. (2007). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy (2nd ed.). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  32. Gick, M., & Holyoak, K. (1983). Scheme induction and analogical transfer. Cognitive Psychology, 15(1), 1–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Gipps, C., & Stobart, G. (2003). Alternative assessment. In T. Kellaghan & D. Stufflebeam (Eds.), International handbook of educational evaluation (pp. 549–576). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hakkarainen, K., Palonen, T., Paavola, S., & Lehtinen, E. (2004). Communities of networked expertise: Professional and educational perspectives. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  35. Harlen, W. (2006). The role of assessment in developing motivation for learning. In J. Gardner (Ed.), Assessment & learning (pp. 61–80). London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  36. Harlen, W., & Deakin Crick, R. (2003). Testing and motivation for learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 10, 169–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Herman, J. L. (2008). Accountability and assessment in the service of learning: Is public interest in K-12 education being served? In L. Shepard & K. Ryan (Eds.), The future of testbased accountability. New York: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  38. Herman, J. L., & Baker, E. L. (2005). Making benchmark testing work. Educational Leadership, 63(3), 48–55.Google Scholar
  39. Herman, J. L., & Baker, E. L. (2009). Assessment policy: Making sense of the babel. In D. Plank, G. Sykes, & B. Schneider (Eds.), AERA handbook on education policy. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  40. Hof, R. D. (2007, August 20). Facebook’s new wrinkles: The 35-and-older crowd is discovering its potential as a business tool. Business Week. Retrieved from http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_34/b4047050.htm
  41. Holyoak, K. J. (2005). Analogy. In K. J. Holyoak & R. G. Morrison (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of thinking and reasoning (pp. 117–142). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Hull, G., & Schultz, K. (2002). School’s out! Bridging out-of-school literacies with classroom practice. New York: Teachers College Columbia University.Google Scholar
  43. International ICT Literacy Panel. (2002). Digital transformation: A framework for ICT literacy. Princeton: Educational Testing Service.Google Scholar
  44. Jenkins, H. (2006). Convergence culture: Where old and new media collide. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Johnson, M., & Green, S. (2004). Online assessment: The impact of mode on student performance. Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association Annual Conference, Manchester, UK.Google Scholar
  46. Koretz, D., Broadfoot, P., & Wolf, A. (Eds.). (1998). Assessment in Education: Principles, policy & practice (Special issue: Portfolios and records of achievement). London: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  47. Kozma, R. B. (Ed.). (2003). Technology, innovation, and educational change: A global perspective. Eugene: International Society for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement.Google Scholar
  48. Laurillard, D. (2009). The pedagogical challenges to collaborative technologies. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 4(1), 5–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Lee, E. Y. C., Chan, C. K. K., & van Aalst, J. (2006). Students assessing their own collaborative knowledge building. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1(1).Google Scholar
  50. Lessig, L. (2008). Remix: Making art and commerce thrive in the hybrid economy. New York: Penguin Press.Google Scholar
  51. Lin, S. S. J., Liu, E. Z. F., & Yuan, S. M. (2001). Web-based peer assessment: Feedback for students with various thinking styles. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 17, 420–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Loader, B. (Ed.). (2007). Young citizens in the digital age: Political engagement, young people and new media. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  53. Loveless, A. (2007). Creativity, technology and learning. (Update.) Retrieved November 30, 2009 http://www.futurelab.org.uk/resources/publications-reports-articles/literature-reviews/Literature-Review382
  54. McFarlane, A. (2001). Perspectives on the relationships between ICT and assessment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 17, 227–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. McFarlane, A. (2003). Assessment for the digital age. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 10, 261–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Mercer, N., & Littleton, K. (2007). Dialogue and the development of children’s thinking. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  57. National Center on Education and the Economy. (1998). New standards: Performance standards and assessments for the schools. Retrieved at http://www.ncee.org/store/products/index.jsp?setProtocol=true&stSection=1
  58. National Research Council (NRC). (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  59. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, United States Public Law 107–110.Google Scholar
  60. Nunes, C. A. A., Nunes, M. M. R., & Davis, C. (2003). Assessing the inaccessible: Metacognition and attitudes. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 10, 375–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. O’Neil, H. F., Chuang, S., & Chung, G. K. W. K. (2003). Issues in the computer-based assessment of collaborative problem solving. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 10, 361–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. OECD. (2005). Formative assessment: Improving learning in secondary classrooms. Paris: OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
  63. Pellegrino, J. W., Chudowsky, N., & Glaser, R. (Eds.). (2001). Knowing what students know. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  64. Poggio, J., Glasnapp, D. R., Yang, X., & Poggio, A. J. (2005). A comparative evaluation of score results from computerized and paper and pencil mathematics testing in a large scale state assessment program. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 3(6). Available from. http://www.jtla.org, 4–30Google Scholar
  65. Pommerich, M. (2004). Developing computerized versions of paper-and-pencil tests: Mode effects for passage-based tests. Journal of Technology, Learning and Assessment, 2(6).Google Scholar
  66. Quellmalz, E. S., & Kozma, R. (2003). Designing assessments of learning with technology. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 10, 389–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Quellmalz, E., Kreikemeier, P., DeBarger, A. H., & Haertel, G. (2007). A study of the alignment of the NAEP, TIMSS, and New Standards Science Assessments with the inquiry abilities in the National Science Education Standards. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, April 9–13, Chicago, ILGoogle Scholar
  68. Raikes, N., & Harding, R. (2003). The horseless carriage stage: Replacing conventional measures. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 10, 267–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Ridgway, J., & McCusker, S. (2003). Using computers to assess new educational goals. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 10(3), 309–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Ridgway, J., McCusker, S., & Pead, D. (2004). Literature review of e-assessment (report 10). Bristol: Futurelab.Google Scholar
  71. Ripley, M. (2007). E-assessment: An update on research, policy and practice. Bristol: Futurelab. Retrieved November 30, 2009 http://www.futurelab.org.uk/resources/publications-reports-articles/literature-reviews/Literature-Review204
  72. Ripley, M. (2009). JISC case study: Automatic scoring of foreign language textual and spoken responses. Available at http://www.dur.ac.uk/smart.centre1/jiscdirectory/media/JISC%20Case%20Study%20-%20Languages%20-%20v2.0.pdf
  73. Ripley, M., & Tafler, J. (2009). JISC case study: Short answer marking engines. Available at http://www.dur.ac.uk/smart.centre1/jiscdirectory/media/JISC%20Case%20Study%20-%20Short%20Text%20-%20v2.0.pdf
  74. Rumpagaporn, M. W., & Darmawan, I.N. (2007). Student’s critical thinking skills in a Thai ICT schools pilot project. International Education Journal, 8(2), 125–132. Retrieved November 30, 2009 http://digital.library.adelaide.edu.au/dspace/handle/2440/44551
  75. Russell, M. (1999). Testing on computers: A follow-up study comparing performance on computer and on paper. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 7(20). Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v7n20
  76. Russell, M., & Haney, W. (2000). Bridging the gap between testing and technology in schools. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8(19). Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v8n19.html
  77. Russell, M., Goldberg, A., & O’Connor, K. (2003). Computer-based testing and validity: A look into the future. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 10, 279–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2006). Knowledge building: Theory, pedagogy and technology. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  79. Schulz, W., Ainley, J., Fraillon, J., Kerr, D., & Losito, B. (2010). Initial Findings from the IEA International Civic and Citizenship Education Study. Amsterdam: IEA.Google Scholar
  80. Sefton-Green, J., & Sinker, R. (Eds.). (2000). Evaluating creativity: Making and learning by young people. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  81. Shepard, L. (2007). Formative assessment: Caveat emptor. In C. Dwyer (Ed.), The future of assessment: Shaping teaching and learning (pp. 279–304). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  82. Shepard, L., Hammerness, K., Darling-Hammond, D., & Rust, R. (2005). Assessment. In L. Darling-Hammond & J. Bransford (Eds.), Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do. Washington, DC: National Academy of Education.Google Scholar
  83. Shephard, K. (2009). E is for exploration: Assessing hard-to-measure learning outcomes. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(2), 386–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Somekh, B., & Mavers, D. (2003). Mapping learning potential: Students’ conceptions of ICT in their world. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 10, 409–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Sweller, J. (2003). Evolution of human cognitive architecture. In B. Ross (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 43, pp. 215–266). San Diego: Academic.Google Scholar
  86. Thurstone, L. L. (1927). A law of comparative judgment. Psychological Review, (34) 273–286.Google Scholar
  87. Torney-Purta, J., Lehmann, R., Oswald, H., & Schulz, W. (2001). Citizenship and education in twenty-eight countries: Civic knowledge and engagement at age fourteen. Amsterdam: IEA.Google Scholar
  88. Voogt, J., & Pelgrum, W. J. (2003). ICT and the curriculum. In R. B. Kozma (Ed.), Technology, innovation, and educational change: A global perspective (pp. 81–124). Eugene: International Society for Technology in Education.Google Scholar
  89. Wall, D. (2005). The impact of high-stakes examinations on classroom teaching (Studies in Language Testing, Vol. 22). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  90. Walton, S. (2005). The eVIVA project: Using e-portfolios in the classroom. BETT. Retrieved June 7, 2007, from www.qca.org.uk/downloads/10359_eviva_bett_2005.pdf
  91. Wasson, B., Ludvigsen, S., & Hoppe, U. (Eds.). (2003). Designing for change in networked learning environments: Proceedings of the International Conference on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning 2003 (Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Series, Vol. 2). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  92. Webb, N.L. (1999). Alignment of science and mathematics standards and assessments in four states (Research Monograph No. 18). Madison: National Institute for Science Education.Google Scholar
  93. Wegerif, R., & Dawes, L. (2004). Thinking and learning with ICT: Raising achievement in primary classrooms. London: Routledge Falmer.Google Scholar
  94. Whitelock, D., with contributions from Road, M., & Ripley, M. (2007). Effective practice with e-Assessment. The Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC), UK. Retrieved November 30, 2009 http://www.jisc.ac.uk/publications/documents/pub_eassesspracticeguide.aspx
  95. Williams, J. B., & Wong, A. (2009). The efficacy of final examinations: A comparative study of closed-book, invigilated exams and open-book, open-web exams. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(2), 227–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Wilson, M., & Sloane, K. (2000). From principles to practice: an embedded assessment system. Applied Measurement in Education, 13(2), 181–208.Google Scholar
  97. Woodward, H., & Nanlohy, P. (2004). Digital portfolios in pre-service teacher education. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 11, 167–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marilyn Binkley
    • 1
  • Ola Erstad
    • 2
  • Joan Herman
    • 3
  • Senta Raizen
  • Martin Ripley
    • 4
  • May Miller-Ricci
    • 5
  • Mike Rumble
    • 4
  1. 1.University of LuxembourgLuxembourgLuxembourg
  2. 2.University of OsloOsloNorway
  3. 3.University of CaliforniaBerkeleyUSA
  4. 4.World Class Arena LimitedLondonUK
  5. 5.WestEdSan FranciscoUSA

Personalised recommendations