The hidden curriculum of 21st century learning
I was recently solicited for my thoughts on the key priorities for 21st Century learning and surprised myself – and my client – with the answer. Prior to this query, I might have rhymed off the usual classroom2.0 mantra: blogging, social media, virtual worlds, mobile technology and, of course, multi-tasking. But the more I reflected on my teaching and client experiences these past few years, the more I realised these priorities aren’t especially technical at all.
This led me to the conclusion that few 21st century learning priorities are less about technical skills, tools, services, software or hardware but far more social, cultural and behavioural as they relate to states of being, thinking, feeling and acting with technology.
The basis for this post is the problematic notion among some educators that these “softer” skills are either already present or easily accessible to learners (or else constitute some sort of “giftedness” or intrinsic “aptitude” or need not be explicitly taught or modeled). Furthermore, I’d like to suggest that these priorities be socially, culturally and cognitively differentiated according to the unique needs of varied learners and learning communities.
When I reviewed my thinking about my own practice as well as the mounting evidence that 21century literacies are increasingly social, I came up with the following three priorities:
1) Digital citizenship (publics & participation v. consumers & audiences)
This defines a participation focus for the public sphere – information and social spaces for the purposes of active citizenship and civic, public and social purposes (publics, commons, communities, participants). This is as distinct from the dominant frames of entertainment and consumerism (consumers, audiences, fans/followers). An example of the participation focus is present in our current Ontario civics curriculum and the digital ethnographies of Michael Wesch and his students.
2) Digital character (purposeful social intelligences)
This defines much needed social dispositions such as empathy, compassion and respect for difference and diversity (culture, race, class, gender, sexual identity, belief and cognitive styles). Examples of digital character and disposition include Roots of Empathy and other “character” building programs exemplify some current approaches to this priority.
3) Mindfulness and attention literacies (time/attention management v. impulsivity)
This defines an orientation towards more contemplative behaviours and approaches to technology use that are self reflexive rather than impulsive. At the heart of the attention literacy movement is Howard Rheingold who has examined these issues for many years within the context of virtual citizenship and online social communities and more recently within his classrooms at Berkeley and Stanford. Rheingold refers to these things, collectively, as “attention literacies.” I would defer anyone to his and Linda Stone’s writing and observations.
The absence of explicit exemplars for the above priorities, what I would collectively term “purposeful social engagement”, has led many schools, school boards and government programs to (finally) address a fundamental gap that has always impeded learning. Understandings, insights and orientations that were never, ever a given among learners. The ideological and institutional foundations of this absence are often defined as “the hidden curriculum” – namely, something that is presumed but not explicitly stated.
Critical pedagogy and the hidden curriculum
At the heart of social justice education (critical pedagogy) is an understanding that education is mediated by a set of unspoken yet experienced power relations, ideological forces and social conditions that contribute far more to “student success” than the mastery of skills or curriculum. These unspoken yet very real conditions are referred to as “the hidden curriculum“:
“Hidden curriculum is said to reinforce existing social inequalities by educating students in various matters and behaviors according to their class and social status. In the same way that there is an unequal distribution of cultural capital in this society, there is a corresponding distribution of knowledge amongst its students.[4] The hidden curriculum can also refer to the transmission of norms, values, and beliefs conveyed in both the formal educational content and the social interactions within these schools.”
The hidden curriculum of 21st Century learning refers to all of the skills – which are increasingly soft and social – that are presumed but not explicitly taught or scaffolded in education. Skills that are largely present among the most socially privileged learners but not explicitly addressed within the curriculum or school structure as a whole.
Educators: Check your privilege!
As well, many of the norms, values and beliefs that are currently associated with 21st Century are mediated by class divisions in online life and technology. For those who experience social alienation or marginalisation according to their race, class, sexual orientation or belief, engaging in online “social” activities isn’t always so appealing – when these spaces are regarded as potentially oppressive, unsafe or unwelcoming. For the poor, taking part in social spaces where the sharing is largely material and associated with lifestyles and activities, involves not only time but investment in the social and class signifiers that largely define social status within these spaces. And then there are the social skills and dispositions I talked about above, which may be absent or differently constructed.
Another negated and problematic aspects of the hidden curriculum of 21st century learning is presumption of hardware access among technologically privileged educators. Due to the highly material nature of hardware, many schools are either out of date or else cannot afford current technologies. The reality is, poverty exists wherever there are human communities – in rural, urban and suburban areas.
And finally, there is the readiness of privileged educators to espouse technological predictions without assessing them according to social justice or equity considerations. For example, in the recent Horizon Report there was a lot of emphasis on “personal mobile technology use” in schools. This forecast said nothing about the highly variable data plans from country to country or the classist assumption that all children have access to a mobile device. These statements also don’t answer any questions about who would be paying for all this personal technology use and the enormous cost of data plans in some learning communities.
“Who am I (in this blog, social network or online space)?”
Those who have argued that such learning is a “social service” and see learning as entirely academic do not understand the fundamental relationship between social success and academic success – or what we call “whole learner” education (head, heart and hands). For example, when we grade a student’s blog are we grading their ability to write online or their confidence?
The greatest challenges my students have expressed around web2.0 social and participatory media hasn’t been at all technical but largely related to their identities. The question “who am I?” with this blog, social network or online persona comes up again and again in student feedback about use of these tools.
This is especially the case with teens and young adults who sense of identity – either as emerging adults or professionals – is in a very transitional state. Given the emphasis on identity in social media, the business of crafting a self is most often the domain of advertisers and products. Which is why the architecture of corporately owned social spaces serves a consumer definition of self (i.e., my favourite bands, my favourite movies, my favourite books – my stuff, my self).
While there is no question that we’re living in the century of the self, I would argue that that “self” isn’t especially self-actualised – at least not in the searching, mindful, reflective and examined ways that traditionally accompanied the vision quest, bildingsroman or self-explorations of prior generations. I’d argue that this difference isn’t specifically generational or cognitive but an historic here and now issue.
A culture of “we” instead of “me”
One of the selling points of social media is that it is an opportunity for young people to “define” themselves. Unfortunately, the nature of “self” as defined within these spaces is largely focused social, cultural or material capital and status — as opposed to other expressions of self and community. We encourage users to think of themselves as social performers and their peers as audiences or “followers.” This is quite different than encouraging ideas of community, commons and publics. The focus, right now, is I, me, my and mine. If we regard social media as a pit of narcissism it’s because of the behaviours we’re encouraging within these spaces – not the technologies.
One of the ways we can start to cultivate more focus on the “us” and less on the me is via the three priorities I defined above. It starts with evaluating our online focus and behaviours according to our participation focus, orientation and disposition as participants, publics and contributors to the public sphere. First and foremost, it involves asking questions about the nature of our engagement in the commons. Are we consumers of each other’s social, cultural or material status or are we participants and contributors in larger projects that benefits us all?
I’ll leave it to you to decide what these projects are or should be, but in the meantime I think we need to start putting the social – and especially the social justice – into what we now term social “media” and 21st century learning.
Further reading/viewing:
VIDEO: Howard Rheingold explains5 key 21st Century literacies – most notably ‘focused attention.’
What about the Null curriculum? I always see it as a trinity: explicit, hidden, and null.
Twitter Comment
RT @melaniemcbride 21st century skills are social skills [link to post] 3 Ansätze, empfehlenswert, #softskills #literacy #Bildung
– Posted using Chat Catcher
Twitter Comment
RT @AngelaMaiers The hidden curriculum of 21st century learning [link to post]
– Posted using Chat Catcher
Twitter Comment
RT@AngelaMaiers The hidden curriculum of 21st century learning [link to post]
– Posted using Chat Catcher
Twitter Comment
But how can we assess it on a standardized test? ;) RT @AngelaMaiers: The hidden curriculum of 21st century learning [link to post]
– Posted using Chat Catcher
[...] The hidden curriculum of 21st century learning 17. Juli 2009 | Thema: Schule | [...]
Twitter Comment
The hidden curriculum of 21st century learning [link to post]
– Posted using Chat Catcher
Twitter Comment
RT @AngelaMaiers: The hidden curriculum of 21st century learning [link to post]
– Posted using Chat Catcher
Twitter Comment
RT @AngelaMaiers The hidden curriculum of 21st century learning [link to post] .@teachpaperless, check this out.
– Posted using Chat Catcher
Twitter Comment
Wow, loving this @melaniemcbride piece: The hidden curriculum of 21st century learning [link to post] (hattip @courosa)
– Posted using Chat Catcher
Twitter Comment
Useful starting point for reflection about emerging educational needs. [link to post]
– Posted using Chat Catcher
This is good stuff… at a slight angle, all three represent areas I am nearly obsessive about.
One note off the top of my head: I really like Linda Stone and was captivated by her personal style and presentation. But when I look hard at continuous partial attention, in particular, I’m unconvinced. Not much there to support what feels like a wishful thinking I have much sympathy with (and have engaged in).
This issue of attention (and mindfulness, contemplation) is CRITICAL and I think at the heart of– and informing– all else. A keynote I gave earlier this summer touches specifically on these topics, Linda Stone, and some other ideas around them.
Twitter Comment
RT Important stuff via @butwait @courosa – @melaniemcbride piece: The hidden curriculum of 21st century learning [link to post]
– Posted using Chat Catcher
Twitter Comment
RT @fncll et al RT @melaniemcbride: The hidden curriculum of 21st century learning [link to post]
– Posted using Chat Catcher
Twitter Comment
Will read: RT @josiefraser: RT @melaniemcbride: The hidden curriculum of 21st century learning [link to post] #lrnchat
– Posted using Chat Catcher
Twitter Comment
RT Important stuff via @fncll @butwait @courosa – @melaniemcbride piece: The hidden curriculum of 21st century learning [link to post]
– Posted using Chat Catcher
Twitter Comment
http://edcsd.org melaniemcbride.net » The hidden curriculum of 21st century l.. [link to post]
< - elearning links
– Posted using Chat Catcher
Twitter Comment
RT @moehlert: Will read: RT @josiefraser: RT @melaniemcbride: The hidden curriculum of 21st century learning [link to post] #lrnchat
– Posted using Chat Catcher
Twitter Comment
The hidden curriculum of 21st century learning – [link to post]
– Posted using Chat Catcher
Twitter Comment
RT @myleejoseph: The hidden curriculum of 21st century learning – [link to post]
– Posted using Chat Catcher
Twitter Comment
RT @jaapvandegeer RT @myleejoseph: The hidden curriculum of 21st century learning – [link to post]
– Posted using Chat Catcher
[...] The hidden curriculum of 21st century learning Important stuff here that overlaps with many of my concerns: attention, participatory agility, character– the stuff of information fluency, etc. Much to chew on (tags: toblog rumilinks attention info fluency digital identity) [...]
Twitter Comment
Melanie McBride: hidden curriculum of 21st century learning: [link to post]
– Posted using Chat Catcher
This is a thoughtful and well-written reflection. I agree strongly with “attention”, and partly with “citizenship”, but these definitions of “social engagement”, “character” and “justice” appear to be too politically uni-directional to satisfy anyone who is apart from your choir.
Jared,
Thanks for your visit and your comment. Always appreciate your perspective.
Values, beliefs and differences aside, I’m interested in knowing what your definitions might be? And priorities as you see them?
My objective with posts like this one is to examine these issues with more rigor and reflexivity rather than the seemingly mindless adoption (or rejection) of any particular technology or tool. We’re still overly fixated on the tools, not the sensory, social or cultural changes those tools reinforce or produce.
What I have shared in this blog is my perspective. I cannot speak for yours or anyone elses, which is why I encourage you and others to do so via your comments. I hope you can find the time to offer any insights or perspectives of your own that would be helpful to others reading this.
@Melanie, thanks for the response. I heartily agree with your objective to examine these issues beyond the adoption of technology, and think its useful for folks of perhaps disparate perspectives to compare and find common ground in order to progress in ways that are mutually satisfactory.
I want to start by suggesting it’s hard to redefine concepts that are born of “critical pedagogy” without validating them. I think we both recognize that the critical pedagogy approach almost immediately steers one towards specific mindsets and assumptions. Still, I see some value in trying to provide a concept of “character” development that is less directive and more inclusive. For instance, if one must use the loaded word “diversity” one might decline to define it through specific inferences, but rather through generalizable statements. Perhaps a broader approach to character development is not to compare learners to a definition that originates from the instructor, but one that encourages them to refer to further develop those that originate from the individuals’ own experiences, and with respect to their familial, cultural, traditional, or religious beliefs.
I should note that my aim is not to suggest that ethics or morality is relative necessarily, but to diminish monolithic influences or determination of such ethics or morality in the classroom, by the teacher, the administration, or others. The primary role of shaping such beliefs, I believe, is still the family.
I do want to go back to so-called 21st c learning because most definitions do provide for skills and abilities that are less technical-skill oriented. To this end, and I think supporting definitions that you have provided here, let me suggest the importance of critical thinking, especially in evaluating accuracy of information, recognizing underlying assumptions, and assessing quality of logic and writing.
Jared,
I couldn’t agree more – and the things you say are surprisingly aligned with both critical pedagogy and character ed. In particular, critical inquiry and thinking – which is really at the heart of most critical pedagogy (as is your suggestion that character development be driven by the learner – not the teacher).
Character education is really quite new and takes all sorts of forms depending on who is talking about it. In fact, most of the early initiatives (unsurprisingly) came from faith-based schools, Catholic boards in particular. Since its adoption in public/secular schools, it’s taken on a somewhat different purpose. Not to endorse or validate a particular set of values or beliefs but rather the behavioural and social dispositions necessary for civil society. Namely: teamwork, responsibility, fairness, empathy, responsibility.
Here is an overview of character development from our school board:
http://www.tdsb.on.ca/_site/ViewItem.asp?siteid=9997&menuid=6685&pageid=5824
The particular values that are embedded in any of these are, of course, influenced by cultural, religious or social differences already present – which we support as teachers by encouraging students to share their own values and beliefs.
When you mentioned having the learners define character education according to their beliefs and values I’d tell you that’s precisely how we’re doing this and that specific objective is instrinsic to what we call diversity and differentiated instruction. Namely, to support and encourage the expression of our differences – as opposed to schools or teachers instilling their own particular values/beliefs. That is transmission/traditionalist instruction (teaching them the WHAT not the HOW). Progressive pedagogy is all about teaching the HOW and leaving it to the learners to discover the WHAT …
While I agree that critical pedagogy finds its roots in largely progressive philosophies, the pedagogical import (to teach critical thinking and inquiry – as opposed to the “what”) is highly objective. Unlike traditionalist pedagogy, critical pedagogy is divorced from the prescriptive, formulaic and rote.
Twitter Comment
The hidden curriculum of 21st century learning – [link to post]
– Posted using Chat Catcher
Twitter Comment
RT @ileducprof: The hidden curriculum of 21st century learning – [link to post]
– Posted using Chat Catcher
Twitter Comment
The Hidden Curriculum of the 21st Century Learning [link to post]
– Posted using Chat Catcher
[...] The hidden curriculum of 21st century learning — Important stuff here that overlaps with many of my concerns: attention, participatory agility, character– the stuff of information fluency, etc. Much to chew on [...]
Twitter Comment
“21century literacies are increasingly social w/3 priorities….” great post from @melaniemcbride [link to post]
– Posted using Chat Catcher
[...] here September 22nd 2009 | Comments(0) | Asides on 21stcenturyskills curriculum education justice [...]
[...] What is the hidden curriculum of media [...]
[...] melaniemcbride.net » The hidden curriculum of 21st century learning (tags: web2.0 21stcenturylearning) [...]
Twitter Comment
Reading interesting blog article “The hidden curriculum of 21st century learning” – [link to post]
– Posted using Chat Catcher
Twitter Comment
RT @CafeRico Reading interesting blog article “The hidden curriculum of 21st century learning” – [link to post] – Good post to read
– Posted using Chat Catcher
[...] from the blogosphere. There are many ways to slice these critiques. Melanie McBride has an interesting critique and suggestions based on (socioeconomic) class distinctions and identity politics. Tom Hoffman critiques the idea [...]