If there’s one term in education that makes for colourful debate, it’s “21st-century skills”. The very name “21st-century skills” invites the argument that many skills that we needed in the past remain relevant today and, in that sense, the term is a bit of a misnomer. Yet it is also true that our society has changed considerably over the past few decades, in large part because of the rise of technology.

For instance, it is arguably much easier now to get access to knowledge. These days, we can just Google it.

However, discussion around 21st-century skills often fails to take into account how far we are already using those skills and instead focuses on the best way to teach them.

Part of the issue here stems from confusion about what we mean by “teaching”. Are we talking about direct instruction? Or do we understand teaching to be the result of every action that a teacher takes during their lesson? If we mean the latter, then it is perfectly reasonable to expect our education system to teach 21st-century skills, such as critical thinking and problem solving - although, if this is indeed what we mean, then perhaps “nurture” is a better word to use.

We might still disagree on the best way of nurturing those skills but, if we agree that they can be modelled and honed, it doesn’t seem constructive to completely dismiss any mention of the need for such skills.

On the contrary, researchers Kirschner and Stoyanov (2020) argue that we need to think urgently about how we educate young people for what they call “non-existent/not yet existing professions”.

They write that, in a “world where there is a longer and ever-more-insecure employment future, something needs to happen in the education and training of our youth”.

They also note that “21st-century skills” is a poor umbrella term to use for the changes we need to see because there is no consensus about what these skills are.

As an example, we could mention a recent review conducted by Pan and colleagues (2021), which looked at what we would consider a very traditional skill: spelling. They concluded that “in the 21st century, spelling does still matter. In fact, in many respects...spelling matters at least as much as it has in prior centuries.”

If spelling will still be important in future, then it will take its place among the other skills that Kirschner and Stoyanov identify as being needed, including information literacy, also known as information problem-solving skills, and information management (in short: the “ability to capture, curate and share information”).

As for what actually needs to change in our education system, Kirschner and Stoyanov came to the following conclusions: first, that cognitive and metacognitive skills are critical; second, that there needs to be a strong relation between learning and authentic situations; and third, that redesigning schools and professionalisation of teachers is relatively unimportant. In other words, we might need to change less than we think. What matters is that we keep a solid foundation but continue to think ahead.

Christian Bokhove is associate professor in mathematics education at the University of Southampton and a specialist in research methodologiesThis article originally appeared in the 4 June 2021 issue under the headline “Do we really need to teach ‘21st-century skills’?”If there’s one term in education that makes for colourful debate, it’s “21st-century skills”. The very name “21st-century skills” invites the argument that many skills that we needed in the past remain relevant today and, in that sense, the term is a bit of a misnomer. Yet it is also true that our society has changed considerably over the past few decades, in large part because of the rise of technology.

For instance, it is arguably no longer necessary for us to have the breadth of knowledge we used to have. These days, we can “just Google it”.

However, discussion around “21st-century skills” often fails to take into account how far we are already using those skills and instead focuses on the best way to “teach” them.

Part of the issue here stems from confusion about what we mean by “teaching”. Are we talking about direct instruction? Or do we understand teaching to be the result of every action that a teacher takes during their lesson? If we mean the latter, then it is perfectly reasonable to expect our education system to “teach” 21st-century skills, such as critical thinking and problem solving - although, if this is indeed what we mean, then perhaps “nurture” is a better word to use.

We might still disagree on the best way of nurturing those skills but, if we agree that they can be modelled and honed, it doesn’t seem constructive to completely dismiss any mention of the need for such skills.

On the contrary, researchers Kirschner and Stoyanov (2020) argue that we need to think urgently about how we educate young people for what they call “non-existent/not yet existing professions”.

They write that, in a “world where there is a longer and ever-more-insecure employment future, something needs to happen in the education and training of our youth”.

They also note that “21st-century skills” is a poor umbrella term to use for the changes we need to see because there is no consensus about what these skills are.

As an example, we could mention a recent review conducted by Pan and colleagues (2021), which looked at what we would consider a very traditional skill: spelling. They concluded that “in the 21st century, spelling does still matter. In fact, in many respects...spelling matters at least as much as it has in prior centuries.”

If spelling will still be important in future, then it will take its place among the other skills that Kirschner and Stoyanov identify as being needed, including information literacy, also known as information problem-solving skills and information management (in short: the “ability to capture, curate and share information”).

As for what actually needs to change in our education system, Kirschner and Stoyanov came to the following conclusions: first, that cognitive and metacognitive skills are critical; second, that there needs to be a strong relation between learning and authentic situations; and third, that redesigning schools and professionalisation of teachers is relatively unimportant. In other words, we might need to change less than we think. What matters is that we keep a solid foundation but continue to think ahead.

Christian Bokhove is associate professor in mathematics education at the University of Southampton and a specialist in research methodologies

This article originally appeared in the 4 June 2021 issue under the headline “Do we really need to teach ‘21st-century skills’?”