Teaching and Learning 21st century Skills: Lessons from the Learning Sciences

April 2012

Anna Rosefsky Saavedra, The RAND Corporation

V. Darleen Opfer, The RAND Corporation

With many thanks to Tony Jackson, Jessica Kehayes, Jennifer Li, David Perkins, Heather
Singmaster and Vivien Stewart for their valuable suggestions.

! 1!
 Table&of&Contents&

Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 3!
Defining 21st century Skills ............................................................................................... 3!
Why Students Need 21st Century Skills........................................................................... 5!
Why Are Many Students Not Learning 21st century Skills? ......................................... 6!
How to Teach 21st century Skills: Nine Lessons from the “Science of Learning” ...... 7!
1.! Make It Relevant ................................................................................................................ 7!
2.! Teach Through the Disciplines ......................................................................................... 9!
3.! Simultaneously Develop Lower- and Higher-Order Thinking Skills .......................... 10!
4.! Encourage Transfer of Learning .................................................................................... 10!
5.! Teach Students to Learn to Learn .................................................................................. 13!
6.! Address Misunderstandings Directly ............................................................................. 14!
7.! Teamwork is an Outcome and Promotes Learning ...................................................... 15!
8.! Exploit Technology to Support Learning ...................................................................... 16!
9.! Foster Students’ Creativity ............................................................................................. 17!
Science of Learning Lessons as 21st Century Skills .............................................................. 18!
Assessing 21st century Skills ........................................................................................... 18!
Formative and Summative Assessments ........................................................................... 19!
Examples of 21st century Assessments .............................................................................. 20!
Meeting the 21st century Assessment Challenge .............................................................. 21!
Building the Capabilities to Teach 21st century Skills ................................................ 21!
Effective Professional Development Is Critical .................................................................... 22!
Schools, as Organizations, Must Support Teachers’ Professional Development .......... 23!
Schools Must Become Learning Organizations ................................................................ 23!
Moving School Systems Toward 21st century Education ........................................... 24!
References ........................................................................................................................ 25!

! 2!
Introduction&
Preparing students for work, citizenship, and life in the 21st century is complicated.
Globalization, technology, migration, international competition, changing markets, and
transnational environmental and political challenges add a new urgency to develop the
skills and knowledge students’ need for success in the 21st century context. Educators,
education ministries and governments, foundations, employers, and researchers refer to
these abilities with terms that include “21st century skills,” “higher-order thinking skills,”
“deeper learning outcomes,” and “complex thinking and communication skills.” Interest
in these skills is not new. For example, researchers at Harvard University’s Project Zero
have been studying how students learn and how to teach these skills for more than 40
years. In this paper, we focus on what research tells us about how students learn 21st
century skills and how teachers can effectively teach them.

While all countries believe that the knowledge and skills that students need in the 21st
century are different from what they have needed in the past, terminology differs between
countries as does the emphasized composition of knowledge, skills and values. We use
the term “21st century skills” because we believe it is currently the most widely
recognized and used term internationally, though we could just as easily substitute any of
the previously mentioned terms for 21st century skills. Critics denounce the term for
being vague and overused,1 for endorsing the idea of teaching skills apart from
knowledge and for promoting skills that have been encouraged for centuries, yet are now
emphasized with a new sense of urgency that could lead to rapid and unsuccessful
reforms.2

In the following sections, we briefly summarize current efforts to define 21st century
skills and explain the economic, civic, and global rationales for why they are important.
We attend to the criticisms leveled against 21st century skills by examining why these
skills must be taught primarily through disciplinary content, taking care not to “trivialize
subject matter”3 and then identifying specific ways to do so. The majority of the paper
thus focuses on explaining how these skills should be taught, given what we know about
how students learn. We then discuss the assessment of 21st century skills and conclude
with an overview of the teacher capacity implications of institutionalizing “new” teaching
and learning processes.

Defining&21st&century&Skills&
There is no shortage of current definitions of 21st century skills and knowledge. In this
paper we do not seek to provide another or choose one over another. Rather we share two
well-known examples and pull out several common themes. In a frequently-cited
example, the University of Melbourne-based and Cisco- Intel- and Microsoft-funded
Assessment and Teaching of 21st Century Skills (AT21CS) consortium—which includes
Australia, Finland, Portugal, Singapore, the United Kingdom, and the United States—

! 3!
organizes 21st century skills, knowledge, and attitudes/values/ethics into the following
four categories:

• Ways of Thinking: creativity/innovation, critical thinking, problem solving,

decision-making, and learning to learn (or metacognition)
• Ways of Working: communication and teamwork
• Tools for Working: general knowledge and information communications
technology literacy
• Living in the World: citizenship, life and career and personal and social
responsibility including cultural awareness and competence4

Another definition comes from the book, The Global Achievement Gap (2008), by Tony
Wagner, Co-director of the Harvard Change Leadership Group. Based on several hundred
interviews with business, nonprofit, and education leaders, Wagner proposes that students
need seven survival skills to be prepared for 21st century life, work, and citizenship:
1. Critical thinking and problem solving
2. Collaboration and leadership
3. Agility and adaptability
4. Initiative and entrepreneurialism
5. Effective oral and written communication
6. Accessing and analyzing information
7. Curiosity and imagination

The Asia Society and the U. S. Council of Chief State School officers specify global
competence as the core capacity students need for the 21st century, and define it as the
capacity and disposition to understand and act upon issues of global significance. Per this
definition, globally competent students:
1. Investigate the world beyond their immediate environment
2. Recognize perspectives, others’ and their own
3. Communicate ideas effectively with diverse audiences
4. Take action to improve conditions5

These 21st century skill definitions (and others not listed) are cross-disciplinary and
relevant to many aspects of contemporary life in a complex world. They do not currently
have a specific place in most curricula. And most lists of 21st century skills are not
entirely composed of skills by any means. They involve aspects of skill and
understanding but many of them emphasize inclinations like curiosity, creativity, and
collaboration that are not, strictly speaking, skills. Some lists emphasize technology, and
others stress attitudes and values more. However, most focus on similar types of complex
thinking, learning, and communication skills and all are more demanding to teach and
learn than memorization and other types of rote skills.

In recent years, education systems worldwide have also developed frameworks with an
increased emphasis on developing the skills, knowledge, and attitudes necessary for
success in the 21st century. Table 1 summarizes some of the reforms that have addressed
21st century thinking skills.

! 4!
Table 1. How national education systems are addressing 21st century skills.

Hong Japan China Finland Singapore United

Kong States
“Learning to “Zest for Living” Greater New focus on New Common Core
Learn” reform education reform emphasis on “citizen skills”: “Framework State
addresses stresses the students’ 1) Thinking for 21st Standards
applied importance of ability to skills, including century Initiative
learning and experimentation, communicate problem Competencies redefines
“other” problem finding and work in solving, and and Student standards to
learning and problem teams, pose creative Outcomes” is make them
experiences, solving instead of and solve thinking. intended to “inclusive of
including rote- problems and 2) Ways of better position rigorous
service and memorization7 learn to learn8 working and students to content and
workplace interaction, take advantage applications of
learning6 3) Crafts and of global knowledge
expressive opportunities. through
10
skills; higher-order
4) Participation skills, so that
and initiative; all students are
and prepared for
5) Self- the 21st
awareness and century”11
personal
responsibility9
2000 2006 2010 2010 2010 2010

Although the approaches across national education systems differ, they are similar in
recognizing the need for more sophisticated thinking and communicating skills.

Why&Students&Need&21st&Century&Skills&
There are compelling economic and civic reasons for education systems to develop
students’ 21st century skills. The economic rationale is that computers and machines can
cost-effectively do the sorts of jobs that people with only routine knowledge and skills
can do, which means the workplace needs fewer people with only basic skill sets and
more people with higher-order thinking skills. Further, supply and demand in a global
rather than national or local marketplace increases competition for workers who can add
value through applying non-routine, complex thinking, and communication skills to new
problems and environments.

There is also a strong civic rationale for schools to increase their focus on developing
students’ 21st century skills. Though students need a foundation of basic civic
knowledge, rote learning, recitation of information about government and citizenship is
not a sufficient way to promote civic engagement. They also need to learn how and why
to be engaged citizens who think critically—so that they can, for example, analyze news
items, identify biases, and vote in an educated way. They need to be able to problem-
solve so they can propose or review policies to address social challenges. They need to be

! 5!
able to work with others if they are to effectively serve as jurors or participate in political
campaigns. They need to be able to communicate effectively orally and in writing so that
they can share their opinions publically, defend their rights, propose new policy, etc.12 In
the U.S. context, engagement in the local and national civic sphere is at an all-time low,13
while increasing inequality—due to the decreasing demand for middle-class jobs that
require only routine knowledge and skills—threatens to weaken commitment to
democracy.14Without 21st century skills, citizens cannot exercise the rights and
responsibilities that contribute to a healthy society

Globalization encompasses the third rationale for teaching and learning 21st century
skills.15 Massive global migration, the Internet, long-haul flights, interdependent
international markets, climate instability, international wars, and other factors remind us
daily that countries, states, and individuals are part of a globally interconnected economy,
ecosystem, and political network and that people are part of the human race. This
interconnectedness makes it even more urgent for students around the world to learn how
to communicate, collaborate, and problem-solve with people beyond national
boundaries.16

These three rationales each motivate the need for 21st century skills from a different
perspective, but they are not at odds. Rather, they complement each other because the
skills and knowledge necessary to engage in the economic, civic, and global spheres
overlap almost completely.

Why&Are&Many&Students&Not&Learning&21st&century&Skills?&&
The dominant approach to compulsory education in much of the world is still the
“transmission” model,17 through which teachers transmit factual knowledge to students
through lectures and textbooks.18 In the U.S. context, for example, the standards and
accountability movement that began in the early 1990s led to the development of
standards that have been taught predominantly through the transmission model and tested
through recall-based assessments. Even among many national board certified-U.S.
teachers, the transmission model dominates.19 Though many countries are shifting the
focus of their educational systems away from this model, it often prevails for two primary
reasons—because educational systems are hard to change20 and because the transmission
model demands less disciplinary and pedagogical expertise from teachers than does the
contrasting “constructivist” model through which students actively—rather than
passively—gain skills and knowledge.21 Through the transmission model, students have
the opportunity to learn information, but typically do not have much practice applying the
knowledge to new contexts, communicating it in complex ways, using it to solve
problems, or using it as a platform to develop creativity. Therefore, it is not the most
effective way to teach 21st century skills.22

A second barrier to students’ development of 21st century skills is that they do not learn
them if they are not explicitly taught. These skills are not typically taught in separate
stand-alone courses on, for example, thinking. We argue below that students should learn

! 6!
21st century skills through disciplinary study so view the lack of stand-alone courses
favorably. According to the OECD’s 2008 Teaching and Learning International Survey
(TALIS), teachers in 22 of 23 participating countries—most of which are Northern or
Eastern European—favor constructivist pedagogy. However, the TALIS also
demonstrates that (in participating countries) 21st century skills are not often clearly
highlighted even when teachers use active learning strategies like debate and structured
classroom conversations.23

A third impediment is that 21st century skills are more difficult to assess than factual
retention. When they are not measured on assessments that have accountability or
certification high stakes, teachers tend to reduce their classroom prioritization. As we
discuss throughout this paper, development of 21st century skills needs explicit attention.

How&to&Teach&21st&century&Skills:&Nine&Lessons&from&the&“Science&
of&Learning”&
Decades of empirical research on how individuals learn
Using&the&Science&of&Learning&
substantiate critical lessons about the best ways to teach
21st century skills. In this paper we refer to this body of The science of learning served
research as the science of learning. as the basis for educational
reforms in Hong Kong and
Shanghai in 2000 and 2002. In
In the following sections, we summarize the science of
both systems, reforms address
learning as it relates to learning and teaching 21st century students as holistic learners,
skills and recommend general lessons that other education mobilize widespread social
systems can apply to move toward similar outcomes. All support and appropriately
of the lessons are about how students learn 21st century balanced centralized versus
decentralized control. System-
skills and how pedagogy can address their needs. Many of
level curricular, pre- and in-
the lessons—particularly transfer, metacognition, service training of teachers,
teamwork, technology, and creativity—are also 21st and information dissemination
century skills in themselves. policies in both countries also
support the implementation of
1. Make'It'Relevant'' practices derived from the
science of learning.1 Those two
sites correspondingly achieved
To be effective, any curriculum must be relevant to the highest scores in the 2009
students’ lives.24 Transmission and rote memorization of Programme for International
factual knowledge can make any subject matter seem Student Assessment (PISA),
irrelevant. In response to that model, students memorize which assesses the extent to
which students near the end of
information for a test, quickly forget it after the test and their compulsory education
then simply look up what they need to know on the have acquired the skills needed
Internet when they actually need it. This model to participate fully in society.
undermines the possibility of developing students’ 21st
century skills because lack of relevance leads to lack of motivation, which leads to
decreased learning.25

! 7!
To make curriculum relevant, teachers need to begin with generative topics, ones that
have an important place in the disciplinary or interdisciplinary study at hand and resonate
with learners and teachers.26 Though there are endless generative topic possibilities,
broad examples might include climate change, statistics
and justice. Students and teachers might study Help&Students&See&the&Big&Picture&
implications of climate change for their local area and
other areas with similar geographic characteristics. They To appreciate the relevance of a
might learn how to use their knowledge of basic statistical given generative topic, students
principles to improve their understanding of statistics used need to understand the big picture,
how pieces fit into the big picture
in popular press. They would not, however, study the and why the big picture matters.
justice system from the perspective of governmental facts In his book Making Learning
to be memorized, because strong generative topics require Whole, author David Perkins uses
student engagement with complex issues. baseball as an analogy: To play
successfully, the players must
know how hitting, catching, and
Choosing a generative topic is the first stage of the well- running bases contribute to the
known Teaching for Understanding curriculum game. Similarly, students need to
framework, developed through a five-year project by understand how, for example,
Project Zero researchers and used by teachers following the order of
mathematical operations fits into
worldwide.27 To choose generative topics, Boix-Mansilla
the bigger picture of mathematical
and Jackson28 recommend that teachers ask themselves thinking and they must have a
questions like, “How does this topic connect to the reality sense of the value of mathematical
of my students’ lives and interests? Am I passionate about thinking in the first place. Perkins
the topic myself? If so, why? Are there better ways to argues for the importance of
explicitly relating every lesson to
frame this topic to make it truly engaging for my
the big picture of the generative
students?” topic under study, whatever that
topic may be. He also
As noted in the accompanying text box, the relevance of demonstrates that young learners
specific topics or issues is clearer to students if it fits can grasp “junior versions” of the
big picture. For example, a junior
within meaningful, holistic context, i.e. “ the big picture.”
version of the French Revolution
Once it is clear to students what the big picture is, they big picture could be
also need to understand each of the knowledge-, skill- and understanding what happens when
attitude-based objectives that contribute to understanding a few people have all of the
the big picture and why they all matter. Developing and resources and power at the
expense of the rest, a lesson that
conveying to students each of these understanding goals is
could be enacted through a
the second step of the Teaching for Understanding model. classroom role-play game.
Through understanding what the big picture is, why it
matters and each of the goals that will get them there, all
of the knowledge—concepts, facts, and theories—and skills—methods, tools, and
techniques—that students will gain through study of a given generative topic are then
relevant.29

Both teachers and students benefit from the use of generative topics and reinforcement of
relevance. Teachers like this method because it allows for the freedom to teach
creatively. Students like it because it makes learning feel more interesting and engaging,
and they find that understanding is something they can use, rather than simply possess.30
In response to the importance of relevance in fostering student engagement in learning,

! 8!
one of the five goals of Ontario’s 2003 Student Success/Learning to 18 Strategy specifies
provision of “relevant learning opportunities for all students.” Through this reform, the
Ministry of Education provides a range of vocational, technical and accelerated learning
opportunities to students that are intended to “match their strengths and aspirations.” 31

2. Teach'Through'the'Disciplines''

Science-of-learning experts concur that learning should take place through the
disciplines, including—but not limited to—native and foreign languages, hard and social
sciences, mathematics, the arts, and music. As Howard Gardner argues, students

Need an education that is deeply rooted in… what is known about the human
condition, in its timeless aspects, and what is known about the pressures,
challenges and opportunities of the contemporary and coming scene. Without this
double anchoring, we are doomed to an education that is dated, partial, naïve, and
inadequate.32

Learning through disciplines entails learning not only the knowledge of the discipline but
also the skills associated with the production of knowledge within the discipline. Through
disciplinary curriculum and instruction students should learn why the discipline is
important, how experts create new knowledge, and how they communicate about it. Each
of these steps map closely to the development of 21st century skills and knowledge.33 For
example, through scientific study, students should learn why science is relevant and what
kinds of problems they can solve through scientific methods, as well as how scientists
carry out experiments, how they reach conclusions, what they do with the knowledge
they gain from the process, and how they communicate their findings. Based on this
perspective, to foster students’ enthusiasm for STEM studies, Japan’s Zest for Living
reform legislation increased emphasis on teaching science and mathematics topics
through foundational disciplinary study processes like those described above.34

Similarly, through historical study, students should learn how to pose a problem they
have realized through familiarity with the historical knowledge base of a given topic. To
solve the problem, they must collect, distill, and synthesize information from oral,
written, and visual primary and secondary sources. They must know where to look for
information, which information will help them to construct an argument, how to interpret
the information they find, how to structure complex causal relationships, how to account
for source biases, and how to compare and contrast their findings with what has already
been presented as historical fact. They must also learn how to communicate their findings
and practice communicating them to diverse audiences.

Continued learning in any discipline requires that the student—or expert—become deeply
familiar with a knowledge base, know how to use that knowledge base, articulate a
problem, creatively address the problem, and communicate findings in sophisticated
ways.35 Therefore, mastering a discipline means using many 21st century skills.36

Developing other 21st century skills like leadership, adaptability, and initiative can also
take place through the disciplines when teachers explicitly define those objectives and

! 9!
facilitate ways for students to develop them. For example, teachers can design activities
in which students practice rotating leadership responsibilities in groups, tutor younger
children, or work with their local communities. An evaluation of U.S. students’ historical
study of the motives and accomplishments of African-American leaders demonstrated
that when leadership qualities are explicitly highlighted, students develop their
conceptual understanding of leadership and demonstrate leadership skills.37

3. Simultaneously'Develop'Lower@'and'Higher@Order'Thinking'Skills''

In the previous section, we explain why students should learn 21st century skills through
disciplinary study. Similarly, students can—and should—develop lower- and higher-
order thinking skills simultaneously. For example, students might practice lower-order
skills by plugging numbers into the equation like E=MC2 as a way to understand the
relationship between mass and energy. To deepen understanding of that relationship,
teachers might ask students probing questions that require higher-order thinking to
answer. Schwartz and Fischer (2006) provide several example questions including: Why
does the formula use mass instead of weight? Can I use my bathroom scale to determine
mass, why or why not? While students might find it quite straightforward to plug
numbers into equations, addressing these questions successfully, while much more
difficult, contributes to flexible and applicable understanding.

Lower-order exercises are fairly common in existing curricula, while higher-order

thinking activities are much less common.38 Higher-level thinking tends to be difficult for
students because it requires them not only to understand the relationship between
different variables (lower-order thinking) but also how to apply—or transfer—that
understanding to a new, uncharted context (higher-order thinking). Transfer (which we
will discuss in more detail below), tends to be very difficult for most people. However,
applying new understandings to a new, uncharted context is also exactly what students
need to do to successfully negotiate the demands of the 21st century.

Higher-level thinking skills take time to develop, and teaching them generally requires a
tradeoff of breadth for depth.39 Singapore’s national educational success validates this
trade-off: Through its Teach Less, Learn More education reform, teachers cover far less
material than do many other countries, but cover it in depth so that students will master
lower- and higher-order concepts.40 Another approach that is popular in Finland and
Singapore is to reverse the way students spend their time in the classroom and on
homework at home. Instead of listening to lectures at school and doing problems at home,
students can read content as homework and at school work on problems in groups while
the teacher poses thought-provoking questions and coaches explicitly on development of
higher-order thinking.41

4. Encourage'Transfer'of'Learning'

Students must apply the skills and knowledge they gain in one discipline to another. They
must also apply what they learn in school to other areas of their lives. This application—
or transfer—can be challenging for students (and for adults as well).42 Scientific attention
to this challenge began in the early 1900s with the work of Thorndike and Woodworth

! 10!
and has led to a large literature and ongoing debate about transfer and the extent to which
people can learn to do it.43 A common theme is that ordinary instruction does not prepare
learners well to transfer what they learn, but explicit attention to the challenges of
transfer can cultivate it.

Transfer involves three variable components, as shown in Figure 1:44

1) What skills, concepts, knowledge, attitudes and/or strategies might transfer?
2) To which context, situation, or application?
3) How can the transfer take place?

Figure'1.'How'Transfer'Works'

Examples of “What” might include ability to work in teams, engagement with learning,
understanding of cause and effect, problem solving through trial and error, and so forth.
Examples of contexts include to other subjects, to other courses within the same general
discipline, to sports, to future workplace settings, etc. And transfer can take place in one
of two general ways. “Low-road” transfer functions reflexively. Students might apply
what they know about using the equation distance=rate*time to using the equation
E=MC2. “High-road” transfer requires deliberate abstraction and generalization about a
particular concept.45 Through the example provided previously of provocative questions
about mass and motion, teachers ask students to engage in high-road transfer by making
conceptual connections between scientific laws and situations they may encounter in their
lives.

There are a number of specific ways that teachers can encourage low- and high-road
transfer.46 To encourage low-road transfer, teachers can use methods like the following:

! 11!
 • Design learning experiences that are similar to situations where the students might
need to apply the knowledge and skills
• Set expectations, by telling students that they will need to structure their historical
argument homework essay in the same way that they are practicing in class
• Ask students to practice debating a topic privately in pairs before holding a large-
scale debate in front of the class
• Organize mock trials, mock congressional deliberations, or other role-playing
exercises as a way for students to practice civic engagement
• Talk through solving a particular mathematics problem so that students
understand the thinking process they might apply to a similar problem
• Practice finding and using historical evidence from a primary source and then ask
students to do the same with a different primary source

The purpose of each of these activities is to develop students’ familiarity and comfort
with a learning situation that is very similar to a new learning situation to which they will
need to transfer their skills, concepts, etc.

Teachers can use other methods to encourage high-road transfer. For example:

• Explicitly ask students to brainstorm about ways in which they might apply a
particular skill, attitude, concept, etc. to another situation
• Ask students to generalize broad principles from a specific piece of information,
such as a law of science or a political action
• Ask students to make analogies between a topic and something different, like
between ecosystems and financial markets
• Ask students to study the same problem at home and at school, to practice
drawing parallels between contextual similarities and differences
• Ask students to think explicitly about their own thinking, (a process known as
metacognition, which we discuss below)

Transfer is hard and students need support from teachers and practice at school to ensure
that it happens.47 Fortunately, we know enough about how to develop students’ ability to
transfer and we have a common sense understanding of its power. For example, Shanghai
university entrance examinations ask students to apply knowledge and skills addressed
through their secondary syllabus-based courses to problems not covered in their courses.
Shanghai education experts believe that training students to transfer their knowledge and
skills to real problems contributed to their success on the 2009 Programme for
International Student Assessment (PISA).48 The importance of transfer brings us back to
the fundamental rationale for learning 21st century skills in the first place—so that
students can transfer them to the economic, civic and global 21st century contexts that
demand them.

! 12!
'
5. Teach'Students'to'Learn'to'Learn'''

There is a limit to the skills, attitudes, and dispositions that students can learn through
their formal schooling. Therefore, educating them
for the 21st century requires teaching them how to Building&Metacognition&
learn on their own. To do so, students need to be
The Visible Thinking project, which
aware of how they learn. Though the history of this provides education tools to a network
concept is long, Flavell first coined the modern of schools in Australia, Belgium, the
label metacognition in 1976 to describe learning to Netherlands, Scotland, Sweden, and
learn and defined it as, “one’s knowledge the United States, helps students
concerning one’s own cognitive processes or develop metacognition through
disciplinary study and explicit
anything related to them…For example, I am examination of thinking processes. In
engaging in metacognition if I notice that I am the “Think-Puzzle-Explore” reasoning
having more trouble learning A than B; if it strikes routine, teachers might ask students
me that I should double check C before accepting it (or students might ask their peers or
as fact.” 49 teachers), “What do you think you
know about subtraction? What makes
you say that? What are you puzzling
Not only is learning to learn a critical skill in itself, over about subtraction? How will we
activities that develop metacognition also help explore our puzzles about
students to learn skills, knowledge, strategies, and subtraction?” With the “Perspective-
attitudes more effectively. For example, a study of Taking” routine, teachers ask students
to consider who might have different
79 Swiss eighth grade classrooms, incorporating viewpoints about a controversial topic
video recordings, student and teacher surveys, and like Internet regulation or stem cell
student achievement demonstrated a positive research or social safety nets. Students
relationship between metacognition and student would then divide up and voice the
achievement on the Third International different viewpoints and then reflect as
a class. Using the “Headlines”
Mathematics and Science Study.50 In Finland, summarization routine, at the
beginning in first grade, teachers place a major beginning of class, teachers might ask
emphasis on students’ metacognition development. their students to write a newspaper
Students set their own educational objectives and headline about the Pythagorean
evaluate their progress. The goal of this practice is theorem. And then at the end, they
might ask students how the headline
“to increase pupils’ curiosity and motivation to they might write then differs from
learn, and to promote their activeness, self- what they would have written before
direction, and creativity by offering interesting the class began. All of these routines
challenges and problems.”51 In Hong Kong, in work in the full class setting and in
accordance with the aptly titled 2000 Learning to pairs or small groups, in which each
student practices vocalizing their
Learn reform, teachers are integrating strategies thinking and also learns how their
designed to develop students’ metacognition into peers think (Richhart & Perkins,
their teaching practice.52 2008).

Teachers can develop students’ metacognitive

capacity by encouraging them to explicitly examine how they think. Researchers studying
the use of concept maps in a school in Melbourne, Australia, found that a practice in
which students wrote “thinking” in the middle of a blank piece of paper and then

! 13!
recorded their ideas about thinking, was an effective way to make them more self-
directed learners and better thinkers.53 In a debate setting, teachers might ask students to
prepare their own argument and prepare to rebut the other teams’ arguments in an
organized way that considers different arguments and potential responses. Then students
can explicitly document why it was helpful to develop their own argument and rebuttals
in advance.54 Teachers can also reinforce students’ metacognition by modeling it on a
regular basis and talking through their own thinking as they address an example problem
and then asking students to reflect on the teachers’ model.

In addition to developing metacognitive skills, it is also important for students to develop

positive mental models about how we learn, the limits of our learning, and indications of
failure. While some cultures view intelligence and learning capacity as innate rather than
effort-based, others believe that effort overrides innate limitations.55 Students benefit
from believing that intelligence and capacity increase with effort (known as the
“incremental” model of intelligence) and that mistakes and failures are opportunities for
self-inquiry and growth rather than indictments of worth or ability.56

In Singapore and Shanghai mathematics classrooms, teachers ask students to work on

problems at the board, not expecting all students to get the right answer. The purpose is
for the effort of those at the board to help students understand the problem and to develop
their broader mathematical understanding, rather than to focus on getting the right
answer.57 An effective way for teachers to cultivate the incremental model includes
praising students for their effort and how they learn rather than for their intelligence as
well as discussing mental models as part of other metacognition building activities.58

6. Address'Misunderstandings'Directly'

Another well-documented science-of-learning theory is that learners have many

misunderstandings about how the world really works, and they hold onto these
misconceptions until they have the opportunity to build alternative explanations based on
experience.59 This process generally requires explicit guidance and takes time.60 For
example, children believe that the world is flat until they learn otherwise, and even
college students who have studied the solar system may still hold onto an incorrect
explanation of why seasons change. Misconceptions develop from the process of creating
explanations based on what we see and hear, and while many of these explanations may
be correct and serve as useful building blocks, others are incorrect and do not take into
account complicated causal relationships.61

To overcome misconceptions, learners of any age need to actively construct new

understandings. Think of how many times you have thought you were absolutely certain
of something, even if someone told you the contrary was true. It is human nature to need
to “find out for ourselves.” Textbooks rarely explicitly speak to misunderstandings,
leaving the challenge of addressing them to the teacher.62 Thus, teachers face the
important challenge of identifying misunderstandings and giving students opportunities
to learn the facts for themselves.

! 14!
There are several ways to counter misunderstandings,
including teaching generative topics deeply (which has many Correcting&Misconceptions&
about&Complex&Causality&
benefits as discussed throughout this paper), encouraging
students to model concepts and providing explicit instruction People tend to have rather deep-
about misunderstandings. seated misunderstandings of
complex causality. They
Teaching topics deeply gives students time and space to struggle less with linear cause
familiarize themselves with ideas that contradict their and effect relationships, in
which one thing simply causes
intuitive misconceptions. Deep attention also facilitates another. But the world is
learning about topics in ways that engage different learning complex and linear
styles and therefore have a better likelihood of turning relationships cannot explain
around the misconception.63 For example, to understand complex phenomena, such as
historical relationships, students can read and discuss scientific systems or historical
events. To understand the types
biographies, analyze demographic data, interpret art, debate of causality with which students
controversial issues, and so forth.64 struggle consider the example
of ecosystems. In domino
Modeling misunderstandings and explicitly addressing them causality, a cause has an effect,
also helps to improve and deepen students’ understanding.65 which causes another effect and
so forth. For example, pollution
For example, in a U.S. middle school setting, researchers causes acid rain, which kills off
studied specific instructional methods designed to improve fish, which depletes bears’ food
students’ understanding of ecosystems. Teachers instructed source, which might limit the
the class to model an ecosystem by assigning each student to bear population, who limit other
a plant or animal role, passing a ball of yarn between the animal populations, etc. In the
re-entrant causality feedback
students. When one part of the ecosystem disappeared— loop, causes become effects and
acted out by a student sitting down—some students would effects become causes. When
feel a tug on the yarn. This concrete, tactile experience plants die they decompose and
provided a forum through which teachers explicitly enrich the soil in which they
discussed with students different types of causal will grow again. In two-way
causality, owls eat mice, which
relationships and how these relationships played out in the provide the owls with needed
model. The researchers found that the combination of energy and also manage the
modeling and explicit instruction successfully increased mouse population so there is
students’ understanding of complex causality and was a enough food for the mice that
useful way of teaching to counteract misconceptions.66 avoid being eaten by the owls.
Because the world really works
through endless series of
7. Teamwork'is'an'Outcome'and'Promotes'Learning' complex causal relationships,
learners must understand and be
The ability to collaborate with others is an important 21st able to apply their
century skill. The science of learning tells us that it is not understanding of complex
causal relationships (examples
only a desirable outcome it is also an important condition for from Grotzer & Basca, 2003).
optimal learning. Students learn better with peers.67 As
Perkins points out with his baseball analogy, people do not learn to play baseball by
themselves—“only Superman could do it and it wouldn’t be much fun!” They should
learn to play baseball from and with their peers and coach.68

In typical transmission-model classrooms, students do not learn from and with their
peers. The teacher and textbook transmit information, and the student engages in a one-
to-one interchange with the teacher. Through this type of interaction, students lose the

! 15!
opportunity to learn from each other and to develop the skill of working with others.
Further, as we have discussed throughout the paper, working in pairs or groups is an ideal
way for students to develop their metacognition and communication skills, to replace
their misunderstandings with understandings and to practice low- and high-road transfer.
The transmission model, therefore, robs students not only of the opportunity to develop
the skills of listening to and learning from others and sharing their thoughts, opinions,
and knowledge constructively, it also detracts from opportunities to develop other 21st
century skills.

There are many ways in which teachers can design instruction to promote learning with
others. Students can discuss concepts in pairs or groups and share what they understand
with the rest of the class.69 They can develop arguments and debate them. They can role-
play. They can divide up materials about a given topic and then teach others about their
piece. Together, students and the teacher can use a studio format in which several
students work through a given issue, talking through their thinking process while the
others comment. Because the studio approach is so dominant in Asian countries, teachers
express concern about class sizes getting too small to find enough different solutions to a
problem to have an effective lesson.70 Another way to promote learning with others is to
have older students tutor younger students, which provides the younger students with
individualized attention and the older students with the motivation to deepen their
understanding of the topic they are tutoring in, as well as develop non-cognitive
characteristics like responsibility and empathy.71 There are many ways in which teachers
can design instruction so that students learn from and with others, developing both their
ability to work in teams and their other 21st century skills.72

8. Exploit'Technology'to'Support'Learning'

Technology offers the potential to provide students with new ways to develop their
problem solving, critical thinking, and communication skills, transfer them to different
contexts, reflect on their thinking and that of their peers, practice addressing their
misunderstandings, and collaborate with peers—all on topics relevant to their lives and
using engaging tools. The River City Multi-User Virtual Environment (MUVE) project is
an example of a technology-based educational tool that seeks to accomplish each of these
objectives. While the program “has the look and feel of a video game,” it is based on U.S.
national biology and ecology standards.73 Participating students enter a 19th-century
virtual environment, in which they learn to behave as health scientists to help explain
why people are getting sick. They collaboratively identify problems with their online
peers, form and test hypotheses, and draw conclusions about underlying causes.74

There are also many other examples of web-based forums through which students and
their peers from around the world can interact, share, debate, and learn from each other.
For example, through the Deliberating in Democracy program, students from Colombia,
Ecuador, Mexico, Peru, and the United States share their perspectives with international
peers on various topics that range from corruption and judicial independence to the
environment to public health and then vote on different policy decisions.75

! 16!
The Internet itself also provides a forum for students’ development of 21st century skills
and knowledge. The nature of the Internet’s countless sources, many of which provide
inconsistent information and contribute substantive source bias, provide students with the
opportunity to learn to assess sources for their reliability and validity. It gives them an
opportunity to practice filtering out information from unreliable sources and synthesizing
information from legitimate ones.76 Once they know where to look for legitimate
information, students can use the Internet as a reference source in countless ways.

Beyond its pedagogical potential, there are many other ways that technology can affect
education. Teachers can use it to develop and share best practices. For example, the
Ontario Ministry of Education created the e-Learning Ontario website to host
instructional and professional development resources in an interactive platform.77
Similarly, Singapore teachers use the Networked Learning Communities78 and Shanghai,
student teachers use Teaching and Learning e-Portfolios to develop their pedagogical,
content and experience-based understanding.79 Technology also provides greater
opportunities to use student data for formative and summative purposes and to assess
students’ understanding in ways that harness MUVE environments and artificial
intelligence. We discuss the assessment theme below.

There is broad consensus that technology holds great promise for education. It has not yet
lived up to this promise, in part because teachers have not had the opportunity to learn to
maximize its pedagogical value. Without direction, teachers tend to use it to mimic the
transmission model. If students only use technology to listen to lectures, read text, and
regurgitate information to their teachers, they encounter all of the pitfalls we have
discussed throughout this paper (That said, an electronic version of the transmission
model at least minimally allows students to become familiar with computer hardware and
software, a skill in itself).

9. Foster'Students’'Creativity''

A common definition of creativity is “the cognitive ability to produce novel and valuable
ideas.”80 Creativity is prized in the economic, civic, and global spheres because it sparks
innovations that can create jobs, address challenges, and motivate social and individual
progress. Like intelligence and learning capacity, creativity is not a fixed characteristic
that people either have or do not have. Rather, it is incremental, such that students can
learn to be more creative. In contrast to the common misconception that the way to
develop creativity is through uncontrolled, let-the-kids-run-wild techniques—or only
through the arts—creative development requires structure and intentionality from both
teachers and students and can be learned through the disciplines.81

Many of the teaching strategies we discuss in this paper are indirectly critical to
developing students’ creativity. Creativity grows out of intrinsic motivation, which
relevance fosters.82 If students find lessons relevant to their lives, they are more
intrinsically motivated to learn and use their newfound knowledge and understanding
creatively. Therefore the science-of-learning lesson about the importance of making
lessons relevant to students also applies to developing students’ creativity. When students
frame their ability to learn in a positive light and view failures as learning experiences,

! 17!
they are more open to developing creatively.83 Therefore the science of learning lesson
about developing students’ positive (incremental) mental models also applies to
developing their creativity. Learning and practicing disciplinary skills like problem
posing and solving, transfer, complex communication, and familiarity with a given
knowledge base can also develop creativity.84 For example, when students are asked to
pose a scientific problem and design their own experiment to test it, they must use their
understanding of the knowledge base and creativity to come up with an interesting
problem and successful design. Therefore the science-of-learning lesson about learning
through the disciplines is yet another strategy that applies to students’ creativity
development.

Teachers can also directly enhance students’ creativity by encouraging, identifying, and
fostering it.85 Encouragement helps students to develop positive mental models about
their ability to develop their creativity. Identifying creativity can help students to
recognize their own creative capacities when they might not otherwise. And like
metacognition, teaching directly about the creative process and what animates or
suppresses it contributes to creative development.

While there are common elements across cultures, there are variations in the spectrum of
conceptualizations of the meaning and value of creativity.86 For example, some cultures
tend to view creativity as having societal and moral values, while others perceive
creativity as focusing more on the individual. In another conceptual dimension, a survey
of more than 400 students from China, Japan and the U.S. found that students from all
three countries valued novelty and usefulness in their conception of creativity.87 Chinese
students, however, were more likely to respond positively to novelty than American or
Japanese students. For Japanese and American students, perceptions of usefulness had a
bigger influence on their conception of good creativity than for their Chinese
counterparts. Fostering and teaching creativity should account for these cultural
differences.

Science'of'Learning'Lessons'as'21st'Century'Skills'

As mentioned in the introduction to the nine science-of-learning lessons, five of the

lessons—transfer, metacognition, teamwork, technology, and creativity—help students to
learn 21st century skills and are also 21st century skills in themselves. They are not
included in all definitions of 21st century skills, though in this paper we attempt to make a
strong case for why they should be. We now turn to the question of assessment of 21st
century skills.

Assessing&21st&century&Skills&&
21st century skills are more challenging to teach and learn and they are also more
difficult to assess. Designing tests that measure lower-order thinking skills like
memorization is straightforward in comparison to measuring skills like creativity,
innovation, leadership, and teamwork. In this section, we first explain the two main

! 18!
purposes of assessment and how they relate to teaching and learning 21st century skills.
We then highlight several challenging issues that educators and policy makers must
consider as they develop 21st century assessments. Finally, we provide several examples
of assessments that measure complex skills and of initiatives that are currently addressing
the challenge of assessing 21st century skills. These examples support our conclusion that
though the assessment challenge is substantial, it is not insurmountable.
Formative&and&Summative&Assessments&

Like teaching for lower-order skills, both formative and summative assessments play
useful roles in teaching for 21st century skills. Formative assessments remind students of
their learning goals, give them feedback about their progress and misunderstandings as
they learn, guide them to shift course as they need and are a critical part of the learning
process. In fact, the importance of formative assessment to the learning process could
even be a tenth lesson from the science of learning! The Teaching for Understanding
(TfU) curriculum framework to which we refer earlier in the paper emphasizes the need
for ongoing formative assessment from teachers, peers, and students themselves to help
learners recognize what they are doing well and where they need to focus more effort.
The formative assessment process generally does not involve others beyond teachers and
students.

Summative assessments give students the opportunity to demonstrate what they

understand at a given point in time. They are useful to certify students’ achievements, for
example, to assign grades, determine level of preparedness for further study, or award
diplomas. They are also useful to measure teachers’, schools’ and systems’ performance
for accountability and improvement purposes. The TfU framework recommends that
summative assessments take place through an activity referred to as performances of
understanding. Through the performance of understanding, a student demonstrates that
he or she understands a topic and can apply the learning to different situations. There are
many ways for students to demonstrate their understanding. They could debate about an
issue related to a generative topic from a certain perspective and then from another. They
could apply what they learn about literature to their own creative writing. They could use
what they learn about the scientific method to develop their own experiment. The list of
examples is endless.

The benefit of performance of understanding-type summative assessments is that they

provide students and their teachers with an excellent sense of the extent to which students
truly understand and can apply what they have learned. However, they pose several
challenges, especially in comparison to multiple-choice tests of students’ lower-order
thinking skills. The first challenge regards who administers the assessment. Teacher-
administered summative assessments require high levels of teacher capacity,
professionalism, and social trust in teachers. On the other hand, sophisticated summative
assessments of 21st century skills that are administered at the district, state, or national
level are costly to manage and mark, requiring high levels of expertise, time, financial
resources, and inter-rater reliability. 88 The second challenge is that summative
assessments often serve several purposes, including certification, accountability, and as a
way to determine where to allocate resources. This is a challenge because assessments of

! 19!
performances of understanding—like most summative assessments—are not designed to
serve all of these roles. Third, given their purposes, summative assessments and results
need to be standardized so that they can serve as a common metric. This standardization
of tasks and marking criteria is particularly challenging when the assessed skills are
sophisticated.
Examples&of&21st&century&Assessments&&

Though the task is challenging, there are many examples of tests in current wide scale use
that measure students’ 21st century skills through disciplinary-based performances of
understanding that are standardized with common metrics. In an internationally
administered example, the PISA test requires students worldwide to demonstrate their
mathematical, language, and science understanding through tasks that require analysis,
reasoning, and complex communication skills.89 The tests are paper- or electronically-
administered and include a mix of multiple-choice and open response questions. In an
example of a multiple choice mathematics question, the students must interpret a graph of
the speed of a racing car along a three- kilometer track as a function of the distance the
car has proceeded along the track. The corresponding set of questions asks students to 1)
estimate distance from the starting line to the beginning of the longest straight section of
the track, 2) note the point at which the slowest speed was recorded and 3) assess the
acceleration or deceleration of the car between the 2.6 and 2.8 kilometer marks. In an
example of an open-ended mathematics question, students see a map of Antarctica and a
scale in kilometers and must estimate Antarctica’s area using the map scale, showing how
they made the estimate.90 Both questions require that students draw upon their
mathematical skills and knowledge to transfer critical thinking and problem solving skills
to a new situation with which they are most likely to be unfamiliar.

Many countries invest in syllabus-based summative assessments that measure the 21st
century knowledge, thinking, and communication skills of large student audiences.
College entry examinations in many countries including (but not limited to) China,
Finland, France, Germany, Japan, and the UK use predominantly open-ended questions
to measure students’ sophisticated thinking and communication skills.91 For example, in
the UK, students usually take examinations in eight to ten subjects, each of which
typically includes two timed written papers that students have about five hours to
complete. The French baccalaureate examination is also based on a series of written tests
spread out over four days. In Japan, students must take written examinations to enter high
school and college. The high school examinations require students to complete
examination papers in Japanese, mathematics, social studies, science and a foreign
language. Students subsequently must take up to three examinations to enter college,
which require students to synthesize knowledge and skills gained through their secondary
disciplinary study.92

The International Baccalaureate (IB) Diploma Program assessment system is another

example of an internally- and externally-administered summative assessment system that
measures students’ 21st century skills. To allow teachers to address students’ local
interests while still preparing students for a common assessment, the IB social science
examinations require students to answer a few questions in considerable depth, yet give

! 20!
students choice among questions. For example, a recent IB history examination asks
students to answer Section A, B, or C. Respectively, the three sections ask students to
incorporate provided sources into sophisticated arguments about the Locarno conference,
Arab-Israeli relations, and Communism from 1976-1989.93 This freedom of choice on the
examination provides teachers with the flexibility to address a few generative topics in
great depth rather than scrambling for superficial coverage of many topics as a way of
ensuring that their students will know at least a little bit about many topics the test might
address.
Meeting&the&21st&century&Assessment&Challenge&

Assessment is moving in the direction of harnessing technology to address the marking

and standardization challenges.94 MUVE programs like River City use technology to
assess students’ knowledge and skills in real time as they engage in the learning activity.
Artificial intelligence tools are progressing to the point that they can assess students’
open-ended answers as well or better than can humans. National governments and
technology companies are investing billions of dollars into the development of valid and
reliable technology embedded assessments of 21st century skills that do not need human
scoring. For example, the National Project Managers in Singapore are building problem
solving and information and communications technology (ICT) assessment tasks that will
be embedded in ICT environments.95 In 2010, the U.S. federal Department of Education
allocated nearly $400 million to the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College
and Careers (PARCC) and Smarter Balanced consortiums of twenty-four and twenty-
eight states, respectively. Both are working to create assessments that use technology to
measure students’ 21st century skills and knowledge as they are detailed in the U.S.
Common Core State Standards.

Given the intense focus on developing cost-effective, wide scale measures of students’
21st century skills and knowledge, the greatest challenge to transitioning away from the
transmission model to the 21st century model may not be assessment. In countries that
have yet to or are just starting to implement systematic teacher capacity reforms, the
greatest challenge is likely to be that of ramping up curriculum and instruction capacity.
Yet countries that have already devoted considerable resources to building teacher
capacity might view current deficiencies in primary and secondary 21st century skills
assessments as the key barrier.

Building&the&Capabilities&to&Teach&21st&century&Skills&
From the local to international levels, progressing from the transmission model to the
21st century model has important implications for the entire educational system. Since
education standards and the purposes of education are changing, curriculum frameworks
and instructional methods must also change. Those changes in curriculum and instruction
have many important human capital implications, including those related to teacher
training, professional development, career mobility, and general cultural standing of the
teaching profession. In this section, we address these human capital issues.

! 21!
Researchers and practitioners agree that building an
st
education system that focuses on 21st century skills Developing&Capacities&of&21 &
requires a strong human capital base.96 After all, teachers century&Teachers&
cannot teach 21st century skills through the disciplines if
Based on a review 2009
they themselves have only mastered basic lower-order review of its teacher
thinking skills and do not have a strong disciplinary preparation system,
background! The logic is compelling. Singapore confronted the
challenge of developing 21st
A strong human capital base is essential, but it will take century teachers by
establishing the Teacher
some countries time to increase the capacity of their
Education Model for the 21st
teaching forces and to build social trust in their century (TE21). Based on the
competence. To accomplish these ends, in addition to TE21, Singapore is
investing in the capacity of teachers who are now starting implementing critical changes
to enter the teaching profession, countries should also to curriculum, pedagogy,
assessment, theory-practice
invest in building the capacity of current teachers to teach
linkages and physical
21st century skills. infrastructure. Addressing the
concern that teachers
Effective'Professional'Development'Is'Critical' themselves need 21st century
skills to teach them, the first
The most critical area to invest in is high-quality of two pedagogical shifts is to
increase “emphasis on self-
professional development. Such training can help teachers directed, inquiry-based, real-
to develop their facility with the kinds of instructional world learning.” (Lee, 2012)
techniques we describe in this paper. The challenge is that
not enough teachers currently have sufficient experience teaching 21st century skills to
have developed the deep expertise needed to train others. As a result, much of the
professional development for 21st century teaching has been disappointing. The results
have been characterized as ineffective in the U.S. setting.97

Effective professional development to train educators to teach 21st century skills should
rely heavily on the same processes that we have identified above as helping students
learn. Teachers need time to develop, absorb, discuss, and practice new knowledge.98
Activities need to be sustained and intensive rather than brief and sporadic.99 Singapore’s
requirement that every teacher engage in 100 hours of professional development every
year is thus consistent with these findings.100

Besides time, another key element of effective professional development for 21st century
teaching is appropriate materials and activities.101 Teachers learn most effectively when
the training activities involve actual teaching materials,102 when the activities are school
based and integrated into daily teaching work of teachers,103 and when the pedagogy of
professional development is active and requires teachers to learn in ways that reflect how
they should teach pupils.104 Like students, teachers are less likely to change practice as a
result of lower-order learning activities that occur via presentation and the memorizing of
new knowledge.105 Professional development is also more effective if teachers from the
same school, department, or grade-level participate collectively.106

Thus, the type of teacher professional develop that best promotes changes in teacher
practices that result in 21st century learning activities are those that mirror the activities

! 22!
for students we’ve outlined in previous sections:
relevance of learning, opportunity to transfer learning Wide&World:&An&Example&of&21st&
to other contexts (including real world contexts), century&Professional&
metacognition and reflection on what has been learned, Development&
and teamwork or collaborative learning activities. A
One example of professional
key challenge is overcoming the traditional learning development that builds teachers’
formats, such as one-time workshops and conferences, 21st century skills is the online
serving primarily as “style shows,”107 that have Project Zero-based Wide World
dominated the profession and have resulted in little (Wide-scale Interactive
Development for Educators)
change to teaching and learning over time.108
which has worked with 6,000
Schools,&as&Organizations,&Must&Support&Teachers’&Professional& educators world-wide to develop
their understanding of the
Development&
Teaching for Understanding
framework and other teaching and
Sustaining teacher learning and making sure it is learning concepts we describe in
implemented in classrooms is a shared responsibility. this paper. Wide World instructors
While teachers must pursue ongoing professional train participating teachers to train
their school-based peers so that
development, schools also play a key role.109 Teachers
the training eventually becomes
can struggle to implement new teaching strategies in self-sustaining.
their classrooms when school conditions are
unsupportive. Particularly challenging conditions
include lack of coordination and leadership, little collegial activity, and no obvious
commitment to professional development.110 Development of teachers’ capacity to teach
21st century skills therefore requires attention not only to training, but also to school
conditions that support the implementation of what has been learned.

Research on the Learning How to Learn project in England identified four organizational
factors that enhance teachers’ learning:
• Involvement of teachers in decision making
• Communication of a clear vision for learning
• Support for professional learning
• Networking support. 111

In an example of a response to the need for supportive school contexts, the Ontario
Ministry of Education created Teaching-Learning Critical Pathway and Collaborative
Inquiry processes to foster collaborative planning and ongoing dialogue among teachers,
principals and school board leaders.112
Schools&Must&Become&Learning&Organizations&

Closely related to schools’ support of teachers’ learning through professional

development, one of the five overarching lessons from the 2011 International Summit on
the Teaching Profession was the need for the development of schools as professional
learning organizations. Attracting and retaining effective 21st century teachers requires
opportunities for continuous, high quality learning, career advancement and a seat at the
table as reforms are discussed and adopted.113

! 23!
Substantial research on the characteristics of learning organizations has identified the
following critical processes and practices that promote such conditions for learning:
• Nurturing a learning environment across all levels of the school114
• Using self-evaluation as a way of promoting learning115
• Examining core and implicit values, assumptions, and beliefs underpinning
institutional practices via reflection116
• Creating systems of knowledge management that leverage resources, core
capabilities, and expertise of staff and pupils117

In their book, The Intelligent School, authors MacGilchrist et al. summarize the
connection between organizational learning and individual learning this way: “A culture
of inquiry and reflection pervades the intelligent school, and support for teachers’ own
learning is fundamental to this culture.”118 The fourth guiding principle of Hong Kong’s
Teacher Competencies Framework (TCF) reflects the need for this connection, “Schools
should be developed as professional learning communities, teachers’ professional
development should be regarded as an important force in school development.”119

Also consistent with this idea, the school system in Shanghai implemented professional
development in 2008 to support teacher learning of 21st century competencies, placing an
emphasis on schools becoming “cultures of thinking for teachers.”120 This culture of
thinking is also common in Chinese schools where teachers have time to observe other
teachers’ classrooms regularly, and borrowing effective lessons is considered a form of
creativity.121

Schools can play a substantial role in supporting teachers’ learning. To do so, they must
create continuous learning opportunities, promote inquiry and dialogue, encourage
collaboration and team learning, and establish systems to capture and share learning.
These activities not only help teachers, they also strengthen schools and mirror the
teaching that best fosters student learning of 21st century skills.

Moving&School&Systems&Toward&21st&century&Education&
In this paper, we have explained why 21st century skills are important and summarized
what the science of learning tells us about how best to teach and assess those skills, as
well as how to ensure that school systems have the human capital to carry out this
important mission. While there is some progress toward this goal, the remaining work
will be demanding and complicated, and it will require precisely the sorts of skills that we
deem critical for the next generation. If we believe that 21st century skills are the key to
solving economic, civic, and global challenges and to engaging effectively in those
spheres, then we must act upon the belief that using those skills to overhaul our education
systems is possible.

! 24!
References&
Academy of Singapore Teachers. (2012).
http://www.academyofsingaporeteachers.moe.gov.sg/cos/o.x?c=/ast/pagetree. Retrieved
03/28/12.

Appiah, K.A. (2006). Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a World of Strangers. New York, NY:
W.W. Norton & Company.

Asia Society. (2011). Improving Teacher Quality Around the World: The International
Summit on the Teaching Profession. New York, NY: Asia Society.

Assessment and Teaching of 21st Century Skills (2012).

http://atc21s.org/index.php/about/what-are-21st-century-skills/ Retrieved 03/28/12.

Argyris, C. (1993). Knowledge for action: A guide to overcoming barriers to

organizational change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Argyris, C., & Schon, D. (1978). Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective.
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Ball, D. L. (1994, November). Developing mathematics reform: What don’t we know

about teacher learning—but would make good working hypotheses? Paper presented
at the Conference on Teacher Enhancement in Mathematics K–6, Arlington, VA.

Birman, B. F., Desimone, L., Porter, A. C., & Garet, M. S. (2000). Designing
professional development that works. Educational Leadership, 17, 613–649.

Black, P. P., & Wiliam, D. D. (2007). Large-Scale Assessment Systems: Design

Principles Drawn from International Comparisons. Measurement: Interdisciplinary
Research and Perspectives, 5(1), 1-53.

Blackwell, L. S., Trzesniewski, K. H., & Dweck, C. (2007). Implicit Theories of

Intelligence Predict Achievement Across an Adolescent Transition: A Longitudinal
Study and an Intervention. Child Development, 78(1), 246-263. doi:10.1111/j.1467-
8624.2007.00995.x

Boix-Mansilla, V., & Gardner, H. (1997). Of kinds of disciplines and kinds of

understanding. Phi Delta Kappan, 78381-386.

Boix-Mansilla, V. & Jackson, A. (2011). Educating for Global Competence: Preparing

our Youth to Engage in the World. New York, NY: The Asia Society.

Borko, H., & Putnam, R. (1997). Learning to teach. In D. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee

! 25!
 (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 673–708). New York, NY:
Macmillan.

Common Core. (2012). http://commoncore.org/p21-challenge.php Retrieved 02/17/12.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2008). Implications of a systems perspective for the study of

creativity. In R. J. Steinberg (Ed.), Handbook of Creativity (pp. 313-335). New York:
Cambridge University Press.

Curriculum Development Institute (2001), Learning to Learn: The Way Forward in

Curriculum, Curriculum Development Institute, Hong Kong
www.edb.gov.hk/index.aspx?langno=1&nodeID=2365. Retrieved 02/17/12.

Darling-Hammond, L., & McLaughlin, M. (1999). Investing in teaching as a learning

profession: Policy problems and prospects. In L. Darling-Hammond & G. Sykes
(Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice (pp.
376–412). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Dede, C. (2005). Planning for Neomillennial Learning Styles. EDUCAUSE Quarterly,

28(1), 7-12.

Deliberating in Democracy (2012). http://www.deliberating.org/ Retrieved 02/17/12.

Desimone, L. M., Porter, A. C., Garet, M. S., Yoon, K. S., & Birman, B. F. (2002).
Effects of professional development on teachers’ instruction: Results from a three year
longitudinal study. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24, 81–112.

Dweck, C. S. (2000). Self-Theories: Their Role in Motivation, Personality, and

Development. Essays in Social Psychology. Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.

Dweck, C. (2009). Who Will the 21st century Learners Be? Knowledge Quest, 38(2), 8-9.

Fischer, K. W. (2009). Mind, Brain, and Education: Building a Scientific Groundwork for
Learning and Teaching. Mind, Brain, And Education, 3(1), 3-16.

Fischman, W., DiBara, J. A., & Gardner, H. (2006). Creating Good Education against the
Odds. Cambridge Journal of Education, 36(3), 383-398.

Fischman, W., & Gardner, H. (2009). Implementing GoodWork Programs: Helping

Students to become Ethical Workers. Knowledge Quest, 37(3), 74-79.

Flavell, J. H. (1976) Metacognitive aspects of problem solving. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.),

The Nature of Intelligence. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Fogarty, R., Perkins, D.N. & Barell, J. (1992). How to Teach for Transfer. Palatine,
Illinois: Skylight Publishing.

! 26!
Fullan, M. & Watson, N. (2011). The slow road to higher order skills: Report to Stupski
Foundation. Unpublished report.

Gardner, H. (1993). Multiple Intelligences: The Theory in Practice. New York, NY:
BasicBooks.

Gardner, H. (1999). The Disciplined Mind: Beyond Facts and Standardized Tests, the K-
12 Education That Every Child Deserves. New York, NY: Penguin Putnam Inc.

Gardner, H. (2004). Audiences for the Theory of Multiple Intelligences. Teachers

College Record, 106(1), 212-220.

Garet, M., Porter, S., Andrew, C., & Desimone, L. (2001). What makes professional
development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American
Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 915–945.

Garet, M., Porter, A., Desimone, L., Birman, B., & Yoon, K. (2001). What makes
professional development effective? Analysis of a national sample of teachers.
American Educational Research Journal, 38, 915–945.

Great Britain Dept. for Culture, M. t., Great Britain Dept. for Education and, E. t., &
Great Britain National Advisory Committee on Creative and Cultural, E. n. (1999). All
our futures: creativity, culture & education. Dept. for Education and Employment.

Greeno, J. G. (1991). Number sense as situated knowing in a conceptual domain. Journal

for Research in Mathematics Education, 22, 170–218.

Greeno, J. G. (1994). Some further observations of the environment/model metaphor.

Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 25, 94–99.

Greeno, J.G., Collins, A.M., & Resnick, L. (1996). Cognition and learning. In D.C.
Berliner & R.C. Calfree (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 15–46).
New York, NY: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.

Grotzer, T. A., & Basca, B. (2003). How does grasping the underlying casual structures
of ecosystems impact students' understanding? Journal of Biological Education, 38(1),
16-29.

Grouzet, F. E., Kasser, T., Ahuvia, A., Dols, J., Youngmee, K., Sing, L., & Sheldon, K.
M. (2005). The Structure of Goal Contents Across 15 Cultures. Journal of Personality
& Social Psychology, 89(5), 800-816.

Guskey, T. R. (2000). Evaluating professional development. Thousand Oaks, CA:

Corwin Press.

! 27!
Hanushek, E. A. (2005). Economic outcomes and school quality: Education policy series.
Paris, France: International Institute for Educational Planning and International
Academy of Education.

Hargreaves, D.H. (1999). The knowledge-creating school. British Journal of Educational

Studies, 47, 122–144.

Hawley, W., & Valli, L. (1999). The essentials of effective professional development: A
new consensus. In G. Sykes, & L. Darling-Hammond (Eds.), Teaching as the learning
profession: Handbook of policy and practice (pp. 127–150). San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.

Hollingsworth, H. (1999). Teacher professional growth: A study of primary teachers

involved in mathematics professional development (PhD Thesis). Deakin University,
Burwood, Victoria, Australia.

Hong Kong Advisory Committee on Teacher Education and Qualifications. (2002).

Teacher’s Development.
http://www.edb.gov.hk/index.aspx?nodeID=1309&langno=1 Retrieved 03/31/12

Hopkins, D., West, M., & Ainscow, M. (1996). Improving the quality of education for
all. London, UK: David Fulton.

International Baccalaureate (2012). International Baccalaureate Diploma Programme

Assessment. http://www.ibo.org/diploma/assessment/. Retrieved 02/17/11.

Klopfer, E., & Sheldon, J. (2010). Augmenting your own reality: Student authoring of
science-based augmented reality games. New Directions For Youth Development,
2010(128), 85-94.

Lee, Sing-Kong (2012). Preparing 21st century teachers: Singapore’s approach.

Presentation, Ministerial roundtable, International Summit on the Teaching Profession.
New York, NY. March 14-15.

Leinhardt, G. (1988). Situated knowledge and expertise in teaching. In J. Calderhead

(Ed.), Teachers’ professional learning (pp. 146–168). London, Uk: Falmer.

Levine, P. (2012). We are the Ones We Have Been Waiting For: The Philosophy and
Practice of Civic Renewal. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Levy, F. & Murnane, R. (2005). The New Division of Labor: How Computers are
Creating the Next Job Market. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Levy, F., & Murnane, R. J. (2006). Why the changing American economy calls for
twenty-first century learning: Answers to educators' questions. New Directions for
Youth Development, 2006(110), 53-62.

! 28!
Levy, S. R., Plaks, J. E., Hong, Y., Chiu, C., & Dweck, C. S. (2001). Static Versus
Dynamic Theories and the Perception of Groups: Different Routes to Different
Destinations. Personality & Social Psychology Review (Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates), 5(2), 156-168.

Loucks-Horsley, S., Hewson, P. W., Love, N., & Stiles, K. E. (1998). Designing
professional development for teachers of science and mathematics. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Corwin Press.

Luk-Fong, P., & Brennan, M. (2010). Teachers' Experience of Secondary Education

Reform in Hong Kong. International Journal Of Educational Reform, 19(2), 128-153.

MacBeath, J. (1999). Schools must speak for themselves: The case for school self-
evaluation. London, UK: Routledge.

MacBeath, J., & Mortimore, P. (Eds.). (2001). Improving school effectiveness.

Buckingham, UK, Open University Press.

MacGilchrist, B., Myers, K., & Reed, J. (2004). The intelligent school. London, UK:
Sage.

McKinsey & Company. (2007). How the world’s best-performing school systems come
out on top. McKinsey & Company.

Nickols, F. (2000). ‘‘What is’’ in the world of work and working: Some implications of
the shift to knowledge in work. In J.W. Cortada & J.A. Woods (Eds.), The knowledge
management yearbook, 2000–2001 (pp. 3–11). Boston, MA: Butterworth Heinemann.

Niu, W., & Sternberg, R. (2002). Contemporary studies on the concept of creativity: The
East and the West. Journal of Creative Behavior, 36(4), 269-88.

Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge creating company: How Japanese
companies create the dynamics of innovation. New York, NY: Oxford University
Press.

Nussbaum, M. (2010). Not for Profit: Why Democracy Needs the Humanities. Princeton,
NJ: Princeton University Press.

Ontario Ministry of Education. (2010). Building a national education system for the 21st
century: Case Study Finland. http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/bb4e/materials.html.
Retrieved 2/17/12.

Ontario Ministry of Education. (2010b). Building a national education system for the 21st
century: The Singapore Experience. http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/bb4e/materials.html.
Retrieved 2/17/12.

! 29!
Ontario Ministry of Education. (2010c). System on the Move: Story of the Ontario
Education Strategy. http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/bb4e/materials.html. Retrieved 2/17/12.

Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development. (2009). Creating Effective

Teaching and Learning Environments: First Results from TALIS.
http://www.oecd.org/document/56/0,3746,en_2649_39263231_47765944_1_1_1_1,00
.html Retrieved 02/17-12

Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development. (2009b). Take the test: Sample
questions from OECD’s PISA assessments.
http://www.oecd.org/document/31/0,3746,en_32252351_32236191_41942687_1_1_1
_1,00.html#Vol_1_and_2. Retrieved 02/17-12

Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (2010). Strong Performers and

Successful Reformers in Education: Lessons from PISA for the United States.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264096660-en. Retrieved 02/17-12

Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (2012). OECD Programme for

International Student Assessment (PISA).
http://www.oecd.org/pages/0,3417,en_32252351_32235731_1_1_1_1_1,00.html
Retrieved 02/17-12

Osler, A., & Vincent, K. (2002). Citizenship and the challenge of global education. Stoke
on Trent: Trentham Books.

Paletz, S., & Peng, K. (2008). Implicit theories of creativity across cultures: novelty and
appropriateness in two product domains. Journal Of Cross-Cultural Psychology,
39(3), 286-302.

Pass, S., & Campbell, R. (2006). Using the History of African American Civil Rights
Leaders to Teach Leadership to High School Students (Our Future Leaders). Social
Studies, 97(4), 172-177.

Pauli, C., Reusser, K., & Grob, U. (2007). Teaching for Understanding and/or Self-
Regulated Learning? A Video-Based Analysis of Reform-Oriented Mathematics
Instruction in Switzerland. International Journal Of Educational Research, 46(5),
294-305.

Pedder, D. (2006). Organizational conditions that foster successful classroom promotion

of learning how to learn. Research Papers in Education, 21, 171–200.

Perkins, D.N. (1995). Outsmarting IQ: The Emerging Science of Learnable Intelligence.
New York: Free Press.

Perkins, D.N. (2006). Cognition and the Art of Instruction course notes. Harvard
Graduate School of Education. Unpublished.

! 30!
Perkins, D.N. (2010). Making Learning Whole: How Seven Principles of Teaching Can
Transform Education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Perkins, D. N., & Grotzer, T. A. (1997). Teaching intelligence. American Psychologist,

521125-1133.

Perkins, D. N., & Grotzer, T. A. (2008). Dimensions of Causal Understanding: The Role
of Complex Causal Models in Students' Understanding of Science. Studies in Science
Education, 41(1), 117-165.

Perkins, D. N., Jay, E., & Tishman, S. (1993). New conceptions of thinking: from
ontology to education. Educational Psychologist, 2867-85.

Perkins, D. N., & Simmons, R. (1988). Patterns of misunderstanding: an integrative

model for science, math, and programming. Review of Educational Research, 58303-
326.

Peterson, P.L., Fennema, E., Carpenter, T.P. & Loef, M. (1989). Teacher’s pedagogical
content beliefs in mathematics. Cognition and Instruction. 6 (1), 1-40.

Putnam, R. (2000). Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community.
New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.

Putnam, R. Y., & Borko, H. (2000). What do new views of knowledge and thinking have
to say about research on teaching? Educational Researcher, 29(1), 4–15.

Ritchhart, R., & Perkins, D. N. (2008). Life in the mindful classroom: nurturing the
disposition of mindfulness. Journal Of Social Issues, 56(1), 27-47.

Ritchhart, R., Turner, T., & Hadar, L. (2009). Uncovering students' thinking about
thinking using concept maps. Metacognition & Learning, 4(2), 145-159.

River City Project (2012). http://muve.gse.harvard.edu/rivercityproject/ Retrieved

02/15/12

Robinson, K. (2001). Mind the gap: The creative conundrum. Critical Quarterly, 43(1).

Saavedra, A. (forthcoming). Dry to Dynamic Civic Education Curricula. In Campbell, D.,

Hess, F., & Levinson, M. Eds. Making Civics Count. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
Education Press.

Saeki, N., Fan, X., & Van Dusen, L. (2001). A Comparative Study of Creative Thinking
of American and Japanese College Students. Journal of Creative Behavior, 35(1), 24-
36.

! 31!
Salomon, G., & Perkins, D. N. (1989). Rocky Roads to Transfer: Rethinking Mechanism
of a Neglected Phenomenon. Educational Psychologist, 24(2), 113.

Schiefele, U., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1995). Motivation and ability as factors in

mathematics experience and achievement. Journal for Research in Mathematics
Education, 26163-181.

Schleicher, A. (2012), Ed., Preparing Teachers and Developing School Leaders for the
21st Century: Lessons from Around the World. OECD Publishing.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264xxxxxx-en Retrieved 02/17-12

Schwartz, M. S., & Fischer, K. W. (2006). Useful metaphors for tackling problems in
teaching and learning. About Campus, 11(1), 2-9.

Senechal, D. (2010). The Most Daring Education Reform of All. American Educator,
34(1), 4-16.

Senge, P.M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning
organization. New York, NY: Doubleday.

Silver, E. A., Mesa, V. M., Morris, K. A., Star, J. R., & Benken, B. M. (2009). Teaching
Mathematics for Understanding: An Analysis of Lessons Submitted by Teachers
Seeking NBPTS Certification. American Educational Research Journal, 46(2), 501-
531.

Singapore Ministry of Education. (2010). Press Release: MOE to Enhance Learning of

21st Century Competencies and Strengthen Art, Music and Physical Education.
http://www.moe.gov.sg/media/press/2010/03/moe-to-enhance-learning-of-21s.php
Retrieved 03/28-12

Stecher, B. (2002). Consequences of Large-Scale, High-Stakes Testing on School and

Classroom Practice. In Hamilton, L., Stecher, B. & Klein, S. Eds. Making Sense of
Test-Based Accountability in Education. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.

Sternberg, R. J. (2003). Creative Thinking in the Classroom. Scandinavian Journal of

Educational Research, 47(3), 325.

Sternberg, R. J. (2006). The Nature of Creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 18(1), 87-
98.

Sykes, G. (1996). Reform of and as professional development. Phi Delta Kappan, 77,
465–489.

Thorndike E.L., Woodworth R.S. (1901). The influence of improvement in one

mental function upon the efficacy of other functions. Psychological Review 8:
247–61.

! 32!
Tishman, S., Jay, E., & Perkins, D. N. (1993). Teaching thinking dispositions: from
transmission to enculturation. Theory into Practice, 32147-153.

Tishman, S., & Perkins, D. N. (1997). The language of thinking. Phi Delta Kappan,
78368-374.

Tyack, D. (1995). Tinkering Toward Utopia: A Century of Public School Reform.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Wagner, T. (2008). The Global Achievement Gap: Why Even our Best Schools Don’t
Teach the New Survival Skills Our Children Need—And What We Can Do About It.
New York, NY: Basic Books.

Wayne, A. J., Yoon, K. S., Zhu, P., Cronen, S., & Garet, M. S. (2008). Experimenting
with teacher professional development: Motives and methods. Educational
Researcher, 37(8), 469–479.

Wideen, M., Mayer-Smith, J., & Moon, B. (1998). A critical analysis of the research on
learning to teach: Making the case for an ecological perspective on inquiry. Review of
Educational Research, 68, 130–178.

Wiske. M.S. (1998). The Teaching for Understanding Guide. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass.

Zack M.H. (2000). Managing organizational ignorance. In J.W. Cortada & J.A. Woods
(Eds.), The knowledge management yearbook, 2000–2001 (pp. 353–373). Boston,
MA: Butterworth Heinemann.
1
Fullan & Waston, 2011, 2.
2
Senechal, 2010.
3
Senechal, 2010, 5.
4
Assessment and Teaching of 21st Century Skills (2012).
5
Boix-Mansilla & Jackson, 2011, 11.
6
OECD, 2010, 102.
7
OECD, 2010, 148.
8
OECD, 2010, 90.
9
Ontario Ministry of Education, 2010, 12.
10
Singapore Ministry of Education, 2010.
11
Common Core, 2012, 1.
12
Saavedra, forthcoming.
13
Levine, 2012; Putnam, 2000.
14
Levy & Murnane, 2006.
15
Boix-Mansilla & Jackson, 2011.
16
Appiah, 2006; Osler & Vincent, 2002, xii; Nussbaum, 2010.
17
Peterson et al., 1989.
18
OECD, 2009.
19
Silver, Mesa, Morris, Star & Benken, 2009.
20
Tyack, 1995.
21
Schleicher, 2012.

! 33!
22
Boix-Mansilla & Jackson, 2011; Schwartz & Fischer, 2006; Tishman, Jay & Perkins, 1993).
23
Schleicher, 2012, 40. Korea is the only East Asian country that participated in TALIS 2008.
24
Boix-Mansilla & Jackson, 2011; Perkins, 2010.
25
Schiefele & Csikszentmihalyi, 1996.
26
Wiske, 1998.
27
Wiske, 1998.
28
2011, 56.
29
Boix-Mansilla & Jackson, 2011; Perkins, 2010
30
Wiske, 1998.
31
Ontario, 2010c, 10.
32
Gardner, 1999, 20.
33
Gardner & Boix-Mansillsa, 2008; Gardner, 1999.
34
OECD, 2010, 149.
35
Grotzer & Basca, 2003; Gardner & Boix-Mansilla, 2008; Perkins & Tishman, 1997; Schwartz & Fischer,
2006.
36
Boix-Mansilla & Jackson, 2011.
37
Pass & Campbell, 2006.
38
Perkins & Grotzer, 2008, 120.
39
Schwartz & Fischer, 2006; Fischer, 2009.
40
OECD, 2010, 168.
41
Schwartz & Fischer, 2006; OECD, 2010.
42
Boix-Mansilla & Gardner, 2008.
43
Thorndike & Woodworth, 1901.
44
From Fogarty et al, 1992 and Perkins, 2006.
45
Salomon & Perkins, 1989; Fogarty, Perkins & Barell, 1992.
46
All examples from Fogarty et al, 1992; Perkins, 2006.
47
Fogarty et al, 1992; Perkins, 2006.
48
OECD, 2010, 92. 98.
49
Flavell, 1976, 232.
50
Pauli, Reusser & Grob, 2007.
51
Preamble, Finnish National Core Curriculum for Basic Education, 2004 cited in Ontario Ministry, 2010.
52
Luk-Fong & Brennan, 2010.
53
Ritchhart, Turner & Hadar, 2009.
54
Perkins & Grotzer, 1997.
55
Levy, Plaks, Hong, Chiu & Dweck, 2001; OECD, 2010, 85, 141.
56
Dweck, 2010; Blackwell, Trzesniewski, & Dweck, 2007.
57
OECD, 2010, 243.
58
Dweck, 2009; Perkins, 2006.
59
Boix-Mansilla & Gardner, 2008; Perkins & Grotzer, 2008.
60
Perkins & Grotzer, 2008; Schwartz & Fischer, 2006.
61
Grotzer & Basca, 2003; Perkins & Grotzer, 2008.
62
Schwartz & Fischer, 2006, 6.
63
Gardner, 1993.
64
Boix-Mansilla & Gardner, 2008.
65
Grotzer & Basca, 2003; Perkins & Grotzer, 2008.
66
Grotzer & Bascia, 2003.
67
Ritchhart & Perkins, 2008, 58.
68
Perkins, 2010, 191.
69
Schwartz & Fischer, 2006.
70
OCED, 2010, 243.
71
Perkins, 2010.
72
Perkins, 2010.
73
River City Project, 2012.
74
Dede, 2005, 9.

! 34!
75
The Constitutional Rights Foundations of Chicago and Los Angeles and Street Law run Deliberating in
Democracy and a grant from the U.S. Department of Education funds it. Deliberating in Democracy, 2012.
76
Dede, 2005.
77
Ontario, 2010c.
78
Academy of Singapore, 2012.
79
Lee, 2012.
80
Saeki, Fan & Van Dusen, 2001, 24.
81
Robinson, 2001.
82
Perkins, 2010; Sternberg, 2006; Csikszentmihalyi, 2008.
83
Ritchhart & Perkins, 2008; Sternberg, 2003.
84
Sternberg, 2003
85
Great Britain National Advisory Commission, 1999.
86
Niu & Sternberg, 2003; Paletz and Peng, 2008.
87
Paletz and Peng, 2008
88
Black & Wiliam, 2007.
89
OECD, 2012.
90
Examples from OECD, 2009b.
91
Black & Wiliam, 2007; OECD, 2010; Ontario, 2010.
92
Examples from Black & Wiliam, 2007 appendix:
http://bearcenter.berkeley.edu/measurement/pubs/toc51.html
93
IBO, 2010.
94
Fullan & Watson, 2011; ATC2S, 2012.
95
Fullan & Watson, 2011.
96
Fullan & Watson, 2011; McKinsey & Company, 2007.
97
Hanushek, 2005; Sykes, 1996.
98
Garet, Porter, Andrew, & Desimone, 2001.
99
Guskey, 2000.
100
OECD, 2010.
101
Birman, Desimone, Porter, & Garet, 2000; Desimone, Porter, Garet, Yoon, & Birman, 2002; Garet,
Porter, Desimone, Birman, & Yoon, 2001; Wayne, Yoon, Zhu, Cronen, & Garet, 2008.
102
Borko & Putnam, 1997; Greeno, 1991; Hawley & Valli, 1999; Putnam & Borko, 2000.
103
Greeno, 1994; Hawley & Valli, 1999; Leinhardt, 1988; Wideen, Mayer-Smith, & Moon, 1998.
104
Borko & Putnam, 1997; Darling-Hammond & McLaughlin, 1999.
105
Birman et al., 2000; Desimone et al., 2002; Garet, Porter, Desimone, et al., 2001; Loucks-Horsley,
Hewson, Love, & Stiles, 1998; Wayne et al., 2008.
106
Birman et al., 2000; Desimone et al., 2002; Garet, Porter, Desimone, et al., 2001; Wayne et al., 2008.
107
Ball, 1994.
108
Hawley & Valli, 1999.
109
Greeno, Collins, & Resnick, 1996, p. 39.
110
Hollingsworth, 1999.
111
Pedder, 2006.
112
Ontario, 2010c, 8.
113
Asia Society, 2011, 26.
114
Hopkins,West, & Ainscow, 1996; Senge, 1990.
115
MacBeath, 1999; MacBeath & Mortimore, 2001; MacGilchrist, Myers, & Reed, 2004.
116
Argyris, 1993; Argyris & Schon, 1978; Senge, 1990.
117
Hargreaves, 1999; Nickols, 2000; Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995; Zack, 2000.
118
MacGilchrist et al., 2004, p. 94.
119
Hong Kong ACTEQ, 2002.
120
Ritchhart & Perkins, 2008, 58.
121
OECD, 2010.

! 35!