Inquiry-Based Leadership:
Getting at the Heart of the Matter
Problem & Research Question
The old classroom model – teacher-centered, one-way, one-size-fits-all – makes no sense to young people who have grown up in a digital world. Instruction must enable students to take ownership of their own learning, use technology to enhance learning, and ensure that student are active participants and ENGAGED in personalized educational experiences. The implementation of inquiry-based learning is a complex process requiring educators, students and their families, policy makers, and community members to develop a new set of standards and assessments around the "soft skills" required for success in the 21st century. The research question at hand here is: how can leaders build better 21st Century teaching & learning structures in a culture of change to support tech-infused PBL implementation?
Historical Background
What was considered a good education fifty years ago is no longer enough for success in college, career, and citizenship in the 21st century. Historically speaking, education has always been shaped by the needs of the societies in which it is set (P21, 2007). John Dewey, responding to the changes brought on by the industrial revolution, said that “It is radical conditions which have changed, and only a radical change in education suffices… Knowledge is no longer an immobile solid; it has been liquefied.” In spite of the growing movement to turn schools into factories preparing churning out future laborers, Dewey advocated for an education system that enlightened both the individual and society by developing a child’s “social power and insight” (Dewey in P21, 2007, p. 1). These reflections seem eerily prescient given today’s educational landscape. The hard truth recognized by Dewey a century ago that “radical change” is necessary is one almost universally shared by university and leaders, business leaders, educators, and policymakers alike. Both the 1983 Nation at Risk report and the Labor Secretary’s 1992 Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills (SCANS) denounced the education system as antiquated, stuck in the industrial- model past, and contributing to the failing economy of the United States. Many today would argue that nothing has changed, except for increased testing and accountability. It is indisputable that tThere is an ever-widening gap between what students learn in school and the skills they need in 21st century workplaces.
In addition to the historical background of the 21st century movement in education, it is also important to also note the movement’s origins within the behavioral science realm. The pioneering work of Lev Vygotsky and Jean Piaget in the 1920’s collectively together influenced Bloom in his creation of a his taxonomy, which ordered cognitive skills by level of complexity. Bloom’s taxonomy proposed that, The inference, then is that in order to learn at the higher levels (analysis, synthesis, evaluation) a student must have learned prerequisite knowledge and skills at lower levels (knowledge, comprehension, application) (P21, 2007). Howard Gardner later furthered our understanding of how we learning and whom we deem “smart” with his theory of multiple intelligences, including inter- and intra-personal, spatial, musical and kinesthetic. Despite the implications of this body of scientific research all of this knowledge around the ways we learn and how we are intelligent, our education system has remained steadfastly stuck in the past, resistant to change, and focused solely almost exclusively on accountability and equity.
In addition to its virtual dismissal of the behavioral science of learning, the education system has both lagged behind technological advances and been sadly misguided in its application, with “new digital devices (being) employed without reference to new approaches to learning” (P21, 2007, p. 7). In an era of buzz phrases such as “bring your own device” and “one to one computing”, school districts are feverishly shelling out funds for 21st century devices like laptops, iPads, interactive whiteboards and responders and putting them in classrooms structured for 20th century learning. The fallout is widespread, with exasperated students, discouraged teachers and irate school boards. Often the harbingers of what’s new and notable in technology, students continually bemoan their teachers’ dearth of techie skill and their perceived squandered opportunities for blended learning. Without adequate training and professional development in integrating technology into all facets of instruction, teachers inevitably default to what they know and are comfortable using (overhead projectors, television), despite the tens of thousands of dollars of state of the art equipment gathering dust in their classroom. Nothing inflames school board members, parents, administrations and the tax-paying community more than wasted funding.
The collective implications of these societal needs, background knowledge of the science of learning, and the need for better implementation of new technologies for learning led to the call over ten years ago for an educational framework designed around 21st century skills and an emphasis on real world relevance (P21, 2007, p. 7).
Both President Barack Obama and Education Secretary Arne Duncan are consistent in their message that assessments that merely measure a student’s ability to bubble in an answer on a test are insufficient and have called for standards and “sophisticated” assessments that measure 21st Century skills like “problem-solving…and entrepreneurship” as well as “individual student growth, creativity, and critical thinking” (Duncan, 2011; Obama, 2009). The “21st Century sSkills” movement is more than a decade old, y. Yet, important questions remain about implementation and the lack of momentum around the movement (NEA, 2012). The National Educator’s Association (NEA) helped establish the Partnership for 21st Century Skills (P21) in 2000 and in 2002 developed a “Framework for 21st Century Learning,” focusing on eighteen 21st century skills. However, over the past decade, concern arose that the framework was too convoluted (NEA, 2012). In response, P21 surveyed leaders to prioritize the eighteen 21st century skills. The survey results clearly indicated that four specific skills were the most important. These became known as the “Four Cs”: critical thinking, effective communication, collaboration on teams, and expanding upon students’ natural creativity (NEA, 2012). The Partnership for 21st Century Skills believes that in order for students to be successful in higher education coursework and in a global job market, U.S. schools must teach both the “3Rs” and the “4Cs,” thereby fostering classrooms that mimic the real world environments found in those settings.
P21 defines the 4Cs in its white paper, “The Intellectual and Policy Foundations of the 21st Century Skills Framework”, describing them as “higher order cognitive competencies students need to be effective and self-reliant lifelong learners” (P21, 2007, p. 12). Critical thinking is explained as the “capacity of active investigative thinking…that is ‘purposeful, reasoned, and goal-directed’” (Halpern, in P21, 2007, p. 12). In addition, the NEA’s “Educator’s Guide to the 4Cs” identifies specific criteria and outcomes for critical thinking, including reasoning effectively, using systems thinking, making judgments and decisions, and solving problems (NEA, 2012, p. 9).
On a local level, the Napa Valley Unified School District has responded to the changing educational landscape by revising its mission, which is now “to transform students’ lives by instilling 21st Century skills and to inspire lifelong learning” (NVUSD, 2012). The district believes it essential to make learning relevant to the real world so that students succeed in their careers, add value to their communities and become contributing members of society. In addition to mastering basic educational requirements, the district places equal importance on students mastering 21st Century skills, specifically, the four C’s. The priorities for the 2012-2013 school year are:
With the movement toward national Common Core State Standards (CCSS) for mathematics and English language arts, the education field has made it clear that the priorities for K-12 education have shifted (CCSS Initiative, 2010). Educational researchers, alongside teachers, have developed goals and benchmarks for what students need to know and be able to demonstrate in order to be successful in the 21st Century world of college and careers. Nevertheless, practitioners have been resistant to implement 21st Century learning or the Common Core State Standards. Many members of the education field feel that the 4 C’s are the key ingredient to usher our students into the 21st Century world of CCSS and next generation assessments. Critical thinking is a non-negotiable skill for success in the 21st Century milieu.
The old classroom model – teacher-centered, one-way, one-size-fits-all – makes no sense to young people who have grown up in a digital world. Instruction must enable students to take ownership of their own learning, use technology to enhance learning, and ensure that student are active participants and ENGAGED in personalized educational experiences. The implementation of inquiry-based learning is a complex process requiring educators, students and their families, policy makers, and community members to develop a new set of standards and assessments around the "soft skills" required for success in the 21st century. The research question at hand here is: how can leaders build better 21st Century teaching & learning structures in a culture of change to support tech-infused PBL implementation?
Historical Background
What was considered a good education fifty years ago is no longer enough for success in college, career, and citizenship in the 21st century. Historically speaking, education has always been shaped by the needs of the societies in which it is set (P21, 2007). John Dewey, responding to the changes brought on by the industrial revolution, said that “It is radical conditions which have changed, and only a radical change in education suffices… Knowledge is no longer an immobile solid; it has been liquefied.” In spite of the growing movement to turn schools into factories preparing churning out future laborers, Dewey advocated for an education system that enlightened both the individual and society by developing a child’s “social power and insight” (Dewey in P21, 2007, p. 1). These reflections seem eerily prescient given today’s educational landscape. The hard truth recognized by Dewey a century ago that “radical change” is necessary is one almost universally shared by university and leaders, business leaders, educators, and policymakers alike. Both the 1983 Nation at Risk report and the Labor Secretary’s 1992 Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills (SCANS) denounced the education system as antiquated, stuck in the industrial- model past, and contributing to the failing economy of the United States. Many today would argue that nothing has changed, except for increased testing and accountability. It is indisputable that tThere is an ever-widening gap between what students learn in school and the skills they need in 21st century workplaces.
In addition to the historical background of the 21st century movement in education, it is also important to also note the movement’s origins within the behavioral science realm. The pioneering work of Lev Vygotsky and Jean Piaget in the 1920’s collectively together influenced Bloom in his creation of a his taxonomy, which ordered cognitive skills by level of complexity. Bloom’s taxonomy proposed that, The inference, then is that in order to learn at the higher levels (analysis, synthesis, evaluation) a student must have learned prerequisite knowledge and skills at lower levels (knowledge, comprehension, application) (P21, 2007). Howard Gardner later furthered our understanding of how we learning and whom we deem “smart” with his theory of multiple intelligences, including inter- and intra-personal, spatial, musical and kinesthetic. Despite the implications of this body of scientific research all of this knowledge around the ways we learn and how we are intelligent, our education system has remained steadfastly stuck in the past, resistant to change, and focused solely almost exclusively on accountability and equity.
In addition to its virtual dismissal of the behavioral science of learning, the education system has both lagged behind technological advances and been sadly misguided in its application, with “new digital devices (being) employed without reference to new approaches to learning” (P21, 2007, p. 7). In an era of buzz phrases such as “bring your own device” and “one to one computing”, school districts are feverishly shelling out funds for 21st century devices like laptops, iPads, interactive whiteboards and responders and putting them in classrooms structured for 20th century learning. The fallout is widespread, with exasperated students, discouraged teachers and irate school boards. Often the harbingers of what’s new and notable in technology, students continually bemoan their teachers’ dearth of techie skill and their perceived squandered opportunities for blended learning. Without adequate training and professional development in integrating technology into all facets of instruction, teachers inevitably default to what they know and are comfortable using (overhead projectors, television), despite the tens of thousands of dollars of state of the art equipment gathering dust in their classroom. Nothing inflames school board members, parents, administrations and the tax-paying community more than wasted funding.
The collective implications of these societal needs, background knowledge of the science of learning, and the need for better implementation of new technologies for learning led to the call over ten years ago for an educational framework designed around 21st century skills and an emphasis on real world relevance (P21, 2007, p. 7).
Both President Barack Obama and Education Secretary Arne Duncan are consistent in their message that assessments that merely measure a student’s ability to bubble in an answer on a test are insufficient and have called for standards and “sophisticated” assessments that measure 21st Century skills like “problem-solving…and entrepreneurship” as well as “individual student growth, creativity, and critical thinking” (Duncan, 2011; Obama, 2009). The “21st Century sSkills” movement is more than a decade old, y. Yet, important questions remain about implementation and the lack of momentum around the movement (NEA, 2012). The National Educator’s Association (NEA) helped establish the Partnership for 21st Century Skills (P21) in 2000 and in 2002 developed a “Framework for 21st Century Learning,” focusing on eighteen 21st century skills. However, over the past decade, concern arose that the framework was too convoluted (NEA, 2012). In response, P21 surveyed leaders to prioritize the eighteen 21st century skills. The survey results clearly indicated that four specific skills were the most important. These became known as the “Four Cs”: critical thinking, effective communication, collaboration on teams, and expanding upon students’ natural creativity (NEA, 2012). The Partnership for 21st Century Skills believes that in order for students to be successful in higher education coursework and in a global job market, U.S. schools must teach both the “3Rs” and the “4Cs,” thereby fostering classrooms that mimic the real world environments found in those settings.
P21 defines the 4Cs in its white paper, “The Intellectual and Policy Foundations of the 21st Century Skills Framework”, describing them as “higher order cognitive competencies students need to be effective and self-reliant lifelong learners” (P21, 2007, p. 12). Critical thinking is explained as the “capacity of active investigative thinking…that is ‘purposeful, reasoned, and goal-directed’” (Halpern, in P21, 2007, p. 12). In addition, the NEA’s “Educator’s Guide to the 4Cs” identifies specific criteria and outcomes for critical thinking, including reasoning effectively, using systems thinking, making judgments and decisions, and solving problems (NEA, 2012, p. 9).
On a local level, the Napa Valley Unified School District has responded to the changing educational landscape by revising its mission, which is now “to transform students’ lives by instilling 21st Century skills and to inspire lifelong learning” (NVUSD, 2012). The district believes it essential to make learning relevant to the real world so that students succeed in their careers, add value to their communities and become contributing members of society. In addition to mastering basic educational requirements, the district places equal importance on students mastering 21st Century skills, specifically, the four C’s. The priorities for the 2012-2013 school year are:
- Ready All Students for College and Career
- Provide Opportunities for All
- Instill 21st Century Skills
With the movement toward national Common Core State Standards (CCSS) for mathematics and English language arts, the education field has made it clear that the priorities for K-12 education have shifted (CCSS Initiative, 2010). Educational researchers, alongside teachers, have developed goals and benchmarks for what students need to know and be able to demonstrate in order to be successful in the 21st Century world of college and careers. Nevertheless, practitioners have been resistant to implement 21st Century learning or the Common Core State Standards. Many members of the education field feel that the 4 C’s are the key ingredient to usher our students into the 21st Century world of CCSS and next generation assessments. Critical thinking is a non-negotiable skill for success in the 21st Century milieu.