Stuff they should already know
In May 2015, Anya Kamenetz wrote an NPR Online piece titled “Nonacademic Skills Are Key To Success. But What Should We Call Them?” She suggests the following terms and phrases are often used imprecisely and interchangeably:
- 21st Century Skills
- Character Education
- Growth Mindset
- Non-cognitive Traits & Habits
- Social & Emotional Skills
- Soft Skills
The article discusses the pros and cons of alternative definitions, interrelationships, and overlaps. The terms and phrases lack clarity making it difficult to teach, research, and assess these skills. Inconsistent usage and intent also promote disagreement about what is most important for students.
Photo credit: LA Johnson, NPR
Additional terms and phrases were suggested in the comments: life skills; coping skills; emotional intelligence; social-emotional learning; Achievement Behavioral Skills; educating the whole person. “Life skills” was widely endorsed and generally preferred over the seven phrases discussed in the article.
A number of respondents (primarily elementary and high school teachers) questioned when and where life skills should be learned. Many suggested these skills are “stuff your parents should have taught you,” implying teachers shouldn’t bear this responsibility.
How does this connect to teaching and learning in higher ed?
I am currently researching informal communication in accounting. Research shows many faculty believe students should already possess these skills. It’s also common to blame students; data suggests accounting programs attract students who are weaker communicators than those in other majors. Students are also blamed for failing to understand the importance of good communication skills. Another popular rationalization is that skills education is vocational and doesn’t belong in higher education. In sum, elementary teachers blame parents. High schools say “life skills,” like interpersonal skills, should have been learned in primary school or taught at home and the academy denies responsibility or blames everyone else.
The buck must stop here. We can lament the circumstances and wish things were different. But since most of us are teaching in places where students possess these skills to limited degrees, it’s time for teachers to ask themselves some hard questions.
If I teach technical content and students develop mastery but they lack “skills” like the ability to communicate informally, have I met my professional responsibility?
Likewise, program leaders should ask:
What barriers inhibit students’ skills development in our courses and programs?
What are the ramifications of teaching skills outside the discipline? For example, what are the implications of teaching writing or speaking in a communications or writing course v. teaching them within technical courses?
It’s also time for institutions to ask: What does an offer of admission imply?
Have you been following the “drowned bunnies” story at Mount Saint Mary’s? Their president suggested the school’s 6-year graduation rate could be strategically improved if high-risk students are “weeded out” during the first few weeks. He is quoted as saying: “This is hard for you because you think of the students as cuddly bunnies, but you can’t. You just have to drown the bunnies … put a Glock to their heads.”
Essentially, newly admitted students (not knowing the purpose of the questionnaire) would be asked to respond to questions designed to identify those at high-risk. They would be encouraged to leave. Those who disagreed with the program publicly, have been relieved of duty (the provost) and fired (two faculty). You can follow the ugly story here and here.
If we don’t think a student can be successful, we should not offer admission. We must also acknowledge that higher education isn’t responsible or able to fill all the skills gaps students have when they arrive. But if we admit them, we have an obligation to provide opportunities to learn content and develop skills. The academy has focused a lot on content, particularly in technical fields. It’s time we do more.
Posted on February 10, 2016, in Learning, Students, Teaching, Uncategorized and tagged education, learner-centered, student preparation, student quality. Bookmark the permalink. 3 Comments.
Lolita, thanks for raising such an important issue. I think we do have a responsibility to help our learners develop the skills they need, whether or not they “should have” learned them already! In Ontario they are called “Essential Employability Skills” and every syllabus needs to demonstrate which ones are integrated into each course. Far from a perfect system but as a start.
As for the “drowned bunnies” comment, I wouldn’t know where to begin!
Thanks for the comment Nicki. I am interested in learning more about the Essential Employability Skills. Will have to investigate… appreciate the information. Hope all is well with you!
Pingback: Resources, Strategies & Advice | Guide on the Side