Higher education has been abuzz with conversations
about noncognitive skills in recent years.
The situation is hard to rectify because assessment in this domain is underdeveloped and heavily disputed and because many early - childhood educators care more
about noncognitive elements of child development.
Now he's back with Helping Children Succeed, a book that proposes a new way of thinking
about noncognitive skills and how parents, educators, and policymakers can help all children develop them.
I am passionate
about noncognitive factors, teacher action research, cognitive neuroscience, and leadership development.
But here's the problem: For all our talk
about noncognitive skills, nobody has yet found a reliable way to teach kids to be grittier or more resilient.
When you read through Deci and Ryan's research on education, it quickly becomes evident that their discussion of motivational forces is very much connected to the conversations that educators have begun having
about noncognitive capacities like self - control and grit.
And it happened without any explicit talk
about noncognitive skills or character strengths.
Not exact matches
Teachers and administrators at EL schools talk quite a bit
about character — their term for
noncognitive skills.
But in my reporting for How Children Succeed, I noticed a strange paradox: Many of the educators I encountered who seemed best able to engender
noncognitive abilities in their students never said a word
about these skills in the classroom.
And it has become clear, at the same time, that the educators who are best able to engender
noncognitive abilities in their students often do so without really «teaching» these capacities the way one might teach math or reading — indeed, they often do so without ever saying a word
about them in the classroom.
We think a lot
about the role of coaches in support of learners and the development of the sort of
noncognitive skills that we know employers value.
But in my reporting for «How Children Succeed,» I noticed a strange paradox: Many of the educators I encountered who seemed best able to engender
noncognitive abilities in their students never said a word
about these skills in the classroom.
It would be nice to see those researchers working at the cutting edge of
noncognitive skills investigate how a competency - based system might enhance what they are learning
about what we need to do to transform our schools to help students build the knowledge, skills, and dispositions for all of them to fulfill their human potential.
For an earlier look at some different ideas on this topic, you can listen to Marty West's interview with Paul Tough
about what parents and teachers can do to foster
noncognitive skills.
In addition, questions
about other
noncognitive factors, such as self - efficacy and personal achievement goals, may be included on questionnaires for specific subjects to create content - area measures.
But some researchers, like Yeager, who study
noncognitive traits, are expressing real concern
about the trend to test them and hold schools accountable.
The document makes strong recommendations
about how the educational community must shift priorities and begin to design learning environments that promote the attributes, dispositions, social skills, and attitudes of these critical
noncognitive skills.
This work argues the importance of the
noncognitive for student life outcomes, reviews the little we know
about how to improve student academic perseverance and mindset, and raises questions
about our nation's current measures of teacher effectiveness.
SEL, deeper learning, character development, soft /
noncognitive skills (my least favorite), 21st century skills, employability skills, agency — to what extent are we conflating terms, and to what extent are we all talking
about the same thing?
He talked
about how the social - emotional learning (SEL) market is exploding and how their «next generation assessment for
noncognitive strengths» meets current education needs with Tessera ™ — the only multimodel assessment that measures SEL strengths and weaknesses in K — 12 students.