Wonder if formal Education (and the associated formal Educators) will be able to see the irony that’s being highlighted here?
I also like Steven Downes’ list:
My list is very different:
– emergent thinking: extracting patterns, rules, regularities, prototypes
– sensing value – finding meaning, truth, relevance, purpose, goals
– acting semiotically – using signs, signals, art, desig, etc., to do things
– seeing beyond – describing, defining, drawing conclusions, explaining data
– ecological sensitivity – placing in context, seeing frames, making meaning
– living in change – understanding flow, adaptation, progression
These are literacies that reflect the times and not simply the fact that we have a lot of machines.
I agree with Steven that the list really is grounded in 20-century perspectives, but I also suspect that this is the only way formal Education will be able to comprehend it. Like I’ve said before, formal education is profoundly broken. I really don’t see a century old system changing very fast, or very much, except around the edges.
Unfortunately for them, if they don’t change, many institutions will find themselves becoming extinct as ‘free’ people find more and more other ways to learn and as these people realize that formal schooling isn’t providing anything they need. Perhaps, formal schooling has had it’s time. Perhaps it’s time to look at getting rid of it entirely?