ICCE 2009 Publications Format

6 downloads 155 Views 114KB Size Report
May 31, 2016 - A gap between these agendas becomes even more prominent when considering .... What makes this relationship complex is that in the digital domain data ... advent of wearables such as Apple and Samsung watches, virtual ...
Chen, W. et al. (Eds.) (2016). Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Computers in Education. India: Asia-Pacific Society for Computers in Education

Literate, Numerate, and Discriminate – Realigning 21st Century Skills Jon MASON*, Khalid KHAN, & Sue SMITH School of Education, Charles Darwin University, Australia *[email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Abstract: In this paper we outline a re-conceptualisation of literacy and numeracy as the commonly conceived foundation skills for formal learning and education. Motivation for doing so has arisen from two sources: (1) a perceived privileging of literacy and numeracy – particularly in the context of high-stakes testing – in an era that demands a re-focusing on skills necessary for effective social engagement in the world; and, (2) the converse of this situation in which literacy and numeracy appear to have a diminished presence within the ‘21st century skills’ agenda. A gap between these agendas becomes even more prominent when considering that our interactions with the world are increasingly configured by the production and consumption of data from an increasing array of sources. This prompted an investigation into the topic of ‘data literacy’ and following a meta-analysis of the various ways in which 21st century skills are elucidated we propose a conceptual re-alignment of the foundation skills of education to include being discriminate alongside being literate and numerate. Discrimination can be said to take place during early childhood when the difference between safety and danger are detected even though notions of real and imaginary may still be blurred. Importantly, the versatility of this construct reaches further into lifelong learning and is used in this paper as a means of distilling a range of competencies that are invoked by terms such as information literacy, digital literacy, media literacy, e-literacy, ethical responsibility, global citizenship, and the ‘getting of wisdom’. The paper is structured into two main sections: firstly, we deal with the conceptual origins and semantics of literacy, numeracy, and various aspects of data literacy; secondly, we address a perceived misalignment in educational public policy associated with academic outcomes and foundational skills. Keywords: literate, numerate, discriminate, data literacy, skills, competence, wisdom

1. Introduction From an adult learning perspective “(t)he relationship between people’s lives and their learning is complex” (Barton, et al., 2007, p.1). It is no less complex for infants and school-age children – and is arguably more so in a turbulent world of economic uncertainty amidst the ever-present immediacy of political, ideological, and religious conflict. Additionally, as emphasised by Castells and Himanen (2014), the global era we now live in is profoundly different from earlier times: “a historical period characterized by the technological revolution in information and communication, the rise of the networking form of social organization, and the global interdependence of economies and societies” (Castells & Himanen, 2014, p.1). Making sense of this world in ways that enable us to engage and contribute to society requires developing appropriate skills and sensibilities – things we learn from both our formal education as well as from the context of our early upbringing. In order to contextualise this study it has been necessary to delve into the roots of the terms literacy and numeracy, terms that are surprisingly not so old given their prominence in current educational discourse. Thus, while investigating how the meaning of literacy is extended as a consequence of the development of the digital revolution, Misson and Mason (1997) underscore the interrelationship between literacy and education within the Macquarie dictionary where two meanings for the word literacy are defined as ‘the state of being literate’ and ‘possessing an education’:

Literacy and education are so thoroughly bound up with each other that a change in literacy practices such as the digital revolution has brought will inevitably have a profound impact on education, just as the changes in education brought about by the new learning technologies will inevitably have an impact on literacy both in its uses across the curriculum and in the teaching of literacy itself (Misson & Mason, 1997, p. 129). While not universal features of all human cultures the modern world has placed a pivotal emphasis upon literacy and numeracy in formal education. This lack of universality is significant if we consider that many Indigenous cultures did not develop any form of written literacy, despite having developed sophisticated forms of language and communication. It is therefore arguable that a more pivotal skill common to all humanity is being able to communicate. Moreover, for Indigenous Australians, for example, maintaining cultural knowledge for thousands of years has also been dependent upon communicating through storytelling, song, and dance. So what is it that is so different now? In the contemporary world where literacy and numeracy are regarded as prominent foundation skills, questions arise as to whether these skills are sufficient in terms of developing the whole person in contexts that are increasingly rich in inter-cultural and technological connections. For many children in the developed world learning how to read, write, and count are now increasingly enabled and mediated by technology whether it is television, an iPad, a calculator, or some other digital device. This technology also connects and embeds us within networks of information and communication that are increasingly a catalyst for the propagation of data – data that can then be manipulated for a huge variety of purposes, from providing feedback to instructors and learners in the form of ‘learning analytics’, informing us how many Facebook ‘likes’ we have to a post, enabling new forms of business intelligence, to serving the purposes of surveillance. As the global aspect of our era becomes ever more apparent so do the responses to the challenges presented. A recent example is New Vision for Education, a report from the World Economic Forum (2016) that involved analysis of practices and trends across nearly 100 countries – among its findings, a key message: To thrive in a rapidly evolving, technology-mediated world, students must not only possess strong skills in areas such as language arts, mathematics and science, but they must also be adept at skills such as critical thinking, problem-solving, persistence, collaboration and curiosity. All too often, however, students in many countries are not attaining these skills. (p. 1) Such commentary is now commonplace within the literature focused on 21st Century Skills and 21 Century Competencies (21CC), although the conceptions and points of emphasis associated with this discourse vary considerably (Voogt, Erstad, Dede, & Mishra, 2013; Griffin, McGaw, & Care, 2012). A simple Google search for images associated with these frameworks reveals an incredible variation, placing emphasis in varying degrees upon competencies that include communication, collaboration, creativity, critical thinking, digital literacy, and global citizenship – but rarely, literacy and numeracy. The findings from the World Economic Forum (WEF) are summarized in the form of a compelling graphic in which 21st Century Skills are presented as three interrelated groups of skills: ‘foundational literacies’, ‘competencies’, and ‘character qualities’ (p. 3). This framework represents a plausible attempt to connect, or re-establish, literacy and numeracy as pivotal foundations of education within the evolving competency requirements of the 21st century. As such, it represents a major step forward in this discourse, In the context of our research, however, the WEF framework also reveals significant gaps. An example is that data literacy is not listed, let alone addressed. Moreover, while the report makes extensive use of data and acknowledges “the greater variety, volume and velocity of data” it does not deal with data directly as something that all global citizens are producing and consuming more of. This anomaly seems stark when considering the discourse on learning analytics and big data in which ‘millions of datapoints’ are now identified as potential sources of evidence for learning (Cope & Kalantzis, 2014, p. 221). Thus, an appropriate response to such developments would seem to be that “increasing focus on education as an evidence-based practice requires that educators can effectively use data to inform their practice” (Gummer & Mandinach, 2015, p. 1). st

1.1 Literacy Literacy has become a term that has high utility in recent times, such as when used when referring to information literacy, media literacy, or computer literacy. It is also commonly used to convey notions of being conversant within a particular domain, such as being politically or financially literate. There is some difference, however, between notions of literacy and literacies. As Barton and Hamilton (2000) point out: “within a given culture, there are different literacies associated with different domains of life” (p.11). In its most instrumental form literacy is reduced to reading and writing, as reflected in Australia’s annual National Assessment Program - Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN). Yet, an implication remains that communication must be an integral aspect to this and that speaking and listening might also be included outside of the test parameters. In giving emphasis to the continued evolution of the term literacy UNESCO (2004) highlights a proposed definition from its 2003 expert group meeting while also identifying that further reflection is required if an internationalized understanding is to be achieved: “Literacy is the ability to identify, understand, interpret, create, communicate and compute, using printed and written materials associated with varying contexts. Literacy involves a continuum of learning in enabling individuals to achieve their goals, to develop their knowledge and potential, and to participate fully in their community and wider society.” This proposed definition attempts to encompass several different dimensions of literacy. Yet because even this plural notion of literacy remains centred on the life of the individual person, more reflection should be given to incorporating into it the various circumstances in which individual learners live their lives. An attendant challenge has to do with accurately monitoring and assessing the multiple forms of literacy (UNESCO, 2004, p. 13). Functional grammar, comprehension and composition is acknowledged in the first sentence of the above quote, for the authors recognize that to be literate is an agile, responsive and reflective activity that renders consequences where the Literate Person is more likely to reap the results that she or he desires according to “the various circumstances in which individual learners live their lives.” Such activity requires discernment.

1.1.1 The ‘new literacies’ The digital revolution can be seen as a powerful agent of change in terms of the ways in which literacy has been appropriated as a qualifying term to indicate competence or knowledge of some domain of practice. There are numerous examples but the most prominent of these in recent decades have been information literacy, computer literacy, media literacy, network literacy, and digital literacy. While there might be implied differences in meaning between these terms it is clear that the semantics associated with literacy prior to the digital revolution were more concerned with the basics of reading, writing, and communicating. Thus, when we consider that digital technologies have also been commonly referred to as information and communication technologies (ICT), it would seem there is a natural progression for literacy to be qualified by terms such as information, computer, media, network, and digital. In a detailed study focused on producing a taxonomy of literacies Stordy (2014) provides a useful framework for understanding the evolution of this term that is informed by earlier work (Lankshear & Knobel, 2007; Street, 1984) in which the notion of new literacies first emerges. However, as seemingly comprehensive as it is, it does not contain any reference to data literacy – which is the term that was the initial focus of our study and a term that has been the focus of other researchers also aiming to establish a meaningful framework (Athanases, Bennett, & Wahleithner, 2013; Deahl, 2014; Gummer & Mandinach, 2015; Koltay, 2015; Riel, Christian, & Hinson, 2012). Before looking more closely at data literacy it is instructive to first consider information literacy given that it first appeared in 1974 (Stordy, 2015) and has since become embedded within our institutions of learning, and specifically within the library and information sciences. In defining information literacy Bruce (1999) offers both a succinct and an extended version:

(1) the ability to recognise information needs and to identify, evaluate and use information effectively (p. 33) (2) Information literacy is about peoples’ ability to operate effectively in an information society. This involves critical thinking, an awareness of personal and professional ethics, information evaluation, conceptualising information needs, organising information, interacting with information professionals and making effective use of information in problem-solving, decision-making and research (p. 46). In her detailed analysis that is focused on informed learning, Bruce (1997; 1999) also provides a framework in outlining “seven faces of information literacy” we experience when: 1. using information technology for information awareness and communication; 2. finding information from appropriate sources; 3. executing a process; 4. controlling information; 5. building up a personal knowledge base in a new area of interest; 6. working with knowledge and personal perspectives adopted in such a way that novel insights are gained; and, 7. using information wisely for the benefit of others. (Bruce, 1999, pp. 36-42) Occurrences of the term of computer literacy date back to the 1990s and were typically used to describe the “skills and competences necessary to effectively use computers and software packages” (Stordy, 2015, p. 457). Thus, during the last decade of the twentieth century and first decade of the twenty first century programs such as the International Computer Driving License and the European Computer Driving License gained traction worldwide – obtaining such a license required an individual to complete and pass structured modules of study that include topics such as computer essentials, online essentials, word processing, and spreadsheets. It is noteworthy here that aspects of numeracy (facility with spreadsheets) were absorbed into the notion of being literate with computers. More recently, a noticeable shift in terminology has been introduced by Jisc (2014; 2015) in the United Kingdom – from developing frameworks that detail the ‘seven elements of digital literacies’ in 2014 to the ‘six elements of digital capabilities’ in 2015. Despite the fact that information literacy can be seen as a forerunner, perhaps even a foundation, to a range of new literacies, there also exists a complex relationship between information and data. What makes this relationship complex is that in the digital domain data and information produce each other. Data cannot exist without an information source and new information becomes available when data can be analysed and interpreted.

1.2 Numeracy One of the impacts of the rapid development of digital technologies is upon our micro habits. Thus, the advent of wearables such as Apple and Samsung watches, virtual reality headgear etc., the boundary between our natural human cognitive domain and an increasingly extended domain that technology enables has begun to blur. This extended domain provides access to personal data never previously possible. Exploring such innovations can be exciting – but such developments also bring new challenges in terms of processing, authenticating, securing, and discriminating data. The evolution of wearable technology has also seen new applications in terms of data producing devices that become part of our biology, often for medical and health purposes (SBS, 2016). What has this got to do with numeracy? In this rapidly evolving information age, numbers mostly come in form of figures, graphs and statistics. We see them routinely in medical reports, financial advice, government policies, and in the daily news media which are all filled with charts and data. The presentation of data in this quantitative form has a consequence that the soundness of the decisions we now make on daily basis is increasingly dependent on having an understanding of how the data might have been gathered and analysed, not just presented. Developing such skills could be understood in terms of both numeracy and an extended qualification of literacy, data literacy, a term we explore in depth later in this paper:

At the level of classroom instructional decision making, the nature of the specific knowledge and skills teachers need to use data effectively is complex and not well characterized. Being able to characterize this requisite knowledge and skills supports definition and measurement of data literacy (Gummer & Mandinach, 2015, p. 1) While the semantics implicit in data literacy can be readily inferred or understood (Vahey, Yarnall, Patton, Zalles, & Swan, 2006) and as common within STEM education (Qin, J., & D’Ignazio, 2010) we think the numeracy aspect is somehow masked or rendered somehow subservient to the literate aspect. Moreover, as we discuss later, the capacity to discern the soundness of data demands a critical capacity to discriminate.

1.2.1 Origins of numeracy Chrisomalis (2009) has found that the “histories of literate and numerate traditions and practices are interwoven in complex ways” based upon findings that numerical notation was present in early language scripts of Mesopotamia, Egypt, Mesoamerica, and China (pp. 59-69). The origins of numeracy also lie deep within the history of mathematics as a system of axioms and logic, hypothesis, conjecture and proof, which is very ancient. However, recognition that mathematical skills are necessary in the lives of common citizens has emerged slowly. An early example is when artists and merchants realized that such skills help determine value for their arts and crafts. Over time, understanding progressively evolved to include the critical necessity of standardized measurements of length, time and money (Crosby, 1997). History also shows that numbers have been connected with mythology, astrology, and religious doctrines. Indeed, numerology developed as its own field from before the time of Pythagoras and has been shown to involve complex mathematical principles (Dudley, 1997). As society evolved the use of numbers as empirical evidence to promote policy decisions was seen as an exercise in control over nature while trying to explain and study them was also seen as interference in God’s work. A famous story is that of murder of 5th Century Pythagorean cultist Hippasus of Metapontum by Pythagoras and his disciples on these grounds (Singh, 1997, p. 50) In early history of America, Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson promoted the same for empirical reasons to justify public policies in the new democracy experiment. Their arguments were also questioned on the basis of religious reasons as an attempt to exercise a control over nature and over life itself (Cohen, 1982; Steen, 1999). When the term numeracy was introduced into educational curriculums in Britain in the mid to late twentieth century it was presented as equivalent to quantitative literacy, a term which was simultaneously employed as its synonym. The expectation was that by having this core skill (on par with literacy) the ordinary citizens would have sufficient skills with handling numbers to become quantitatively literate (Steen, 1999). For the past few decades a lot of research has been done to explain and bridge the gap between the data skills and numeracy of the public (Steen, 2001; Sullivan, 2011). Nearly, fifteen years ago Steen (2001) wrote: A mathematics program designed for the information demands of the twenty-first century would look rather different from the nineteenth century inheritance that predominates now in most nations: • Mathematics would be presented in contexts that make sense to the learner. For example, commonly used topics such as data, graphs, and logical analysis would be stressed as much as formulas and algorithms so that students see mathematics as a tool for everyday decisions. • Interdisciplinary applications would show the relevance of mathematics in real-world situations and students would understand how mathematics is important in other subject areas and in future careers. • All school subjects would reinforce the role of quantitative thinking as a tool for discovering and verifying insights that are relevant to other school subjects. • By emphasizing problem solving and reasoning skills, mathematics instruction would better prepare students to deal with unfamiliar situations.

• •

By learning how to ask questions and demand clarity in explanations, students would develop autonomy in reasoning. Mathematical and quantitative skills would be linked to literacy in ways that enhance students’ abilities to communicate about technical subjects. (pp. 4-5)

However, there remains confusion with regards to the right balance between numeracy for community life and its relation to core mathematical processes. The Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) uses the term mathematical literacy to describe: […] an individual’s capacity to formulate, employ, and interpret mathematics in a variety of contexts. It includes reasoning mathematically and using mathematical concepts, procedures, facts, and tools to describe, explain, and predict phenomena. It assists individuals in recognizing the role that mathematics plays in the world and to make the well-founded judgements and decisions needed by constructive, engaged and reflective citizens. (OECD, 2013, p. 25) Mathematics is considered by educators as a system composed of multiple, interconnected and interdependent concepts and structures which students must apply beyond the classrooms. There is, however, no clear mandate on what essential elements in the basic education of mathematics this constitutes. Given that all k-12 educational curriculums consider algebra, probability and geometry as a core combination of skills, can these skills be considered foundational for the numerically abled citizen? Or, is there something else within mathematical thinking that is important to teach – at least as important as achieving numeracy? 1.2.2 Data Literacy Could the core functions of education in our global era be to raise student awareness of data, statistics and related implications, particularly the data we encounter in everyday life? Such a proposition may be implicit in many curriculums but it is not always explicit. Even within frontier agendas such as the 21st Century Skills movement such a notion seems to be inferred as an aspect of digital literacy or ICT literacy when combined with skills such as critical thinking and problem solving (Griffin, McGaw, & Care, 2012). An alternative is to define data literacy as a skill in itself. But while adopting such a term within this discourse makes sense, such a term also needs to be adequately explained in context. It could just describe the safe handling and manipulation of a variety of data and information on a daily basis, and from a variety of digital devices. For us, more important is the discernment and discrimination required to make sound decisions. This would not be possible unless we teach students to understand how to identify questions, collect evidence (as data) and discover and apply tools to interpret, communicate and exchange results (Rumsey, 2002). In his books What’s the Point? Motivation and Mathematics Crisis and Motivating Mathematics – Engaging Teachers and Engaged Students, Wells (2008; 2015) writes about how teachers struggle with the question ‘what’s the point, sir!’ It is precisely the point of mathematics that students learn to actively think and ask this question when dealing with data in order to separate the truth from vagueness that data, formulas, interpretation and context bring along with it, to separate real from the imaginary, arguments from rhetoric, fact from fiction and plausible from the certain. The main aim of basic mathematics education is to develop mathematical thinking. Being numerate, however, does not encapsulate the core of mathematical thinking. In contemporary global settings the development of mathematical thinking also implies reasoning and processing skills that involve precision while also enhancing intuition and problem solving abilities. Such skills underscore the rationale for the advocacy of STEM education in our increasingly data-driven, and evidence-based requirements of social and economic advancement. Innovation can also be seen as emerging from the ability to discriminate. Prime numbers versus composite numbers, odd versus even numbers, normal distribution versus skewed distribution, maximum versus minimum, certainty versus uncertainty, and so on. Discrimination is an ability to find the odd one out – while looking for patterns, asymmetry stands out. Recognizing and discriminating digital data when each individual action gives rise to another set of data is a skill that is missing from our educational frameworks – where numerate and literate are the main focus.

In our view, data literacy can be subsumed within a core skill of being able to discriminate. Such a conception is more encompassing than the operational aspects of being literate and numerate. It is not necessarily separate from literacy and numeracy but another lens through which to read the world. In other words, an essential ability needed to quantify, qualify, discern, and predict. Thus, researchers have identified data literacy as a core competency within library science and STEM education. To date, however, it is significant that a key concern is with the ethical use of data when sharing and reusing it (Koltay, 2013; Zilinski, et al, 2014). A typical example is well summarized by Calzada Prado & Marzal (2013) where data literacy is described as the ability that “enables individuals to access, interpret, critically assess, manage, handle and ethically use data” (pp. 123-124). Combining, discriminating and aggregating different sources of data also assists in posing new questions and seeing new angles. Teaching data literacy, then, could therefore be classified into five aspects: • Reading the data – understanding the need for data to be collected; recognizing more than one way to collect and present data; literate with the basic concepts; numerate in understanding formulas, graphs, charts and tables, etc. • Questioning the data – critically appraising the provenance of data; checking on who, how, why, and when the data was collected; examining sample size, census, and survey integrity; questioning the methodology; assessing data quality; and identifying potential issues. • Reading between the data – understanding of various factors that may have an impact on the data, how a bias might have been or could have been introduced; questioning what is not stated; sample selection, patterns, errors and outliers. • Reading beyond the data – understanding methodological issues such as sampling technique, survey design, noise, context, significance, randomness, independence, and metadata; distinguishing between correlation and causation, understanding how a third variable may explain a relationship between the two others; • Using data – predicting and generalizing from available datasets; understanding trends, drawing inferences; appreciating public and private use, ethical actions and consequences; drawing inferences and understanding how results may be wisely used or irresponsibly misused. In the context of this paper we see the ability to make ethical decisions and employ analytical and questioning skills in diverse contexts as paramount. Thus, the ability to ask the question ‘what’s the point?’ is not only a fundamental act of sense-making but also being discriminate in order to understand better. For example, in the context of both mathematics education and data literacy: Regardless of where a person is involved in the chain of statistical information, there will be a need for a basic understanding of the concepts and language, a level of reasoning (the abilities to question, compare, and explain) and a level of statistical thinking (applying the ideas to new problems and identifying questions of your own) (Rumsey, 2002). Applications of mathematical skills are ubiquitous, be it geometry in art and architecture, calculus and measurement in science, syllogism, logic and reasoning in language and communication, ratios and patterns in music composition, matrices in data representation and ranking, or games and networking. All these contexts require us to reason, process and distinguish useful versus useless, and to collect evidence and interpret results. And all these skills require moving beyond mere ordinary number operations and applying computational algorithms. Our reasoning skills require us to discriminate and compare the data we might access, with the answers established by our internal thinking mechanism before we process it. Under discriminate we distinguish and connect; through this we understand the difference between the background data from the main data and be aware of the relationships that may or may not exists. 1.2.3 Key Terms The construct of data literacy can also be understood as emergent from a range of disparate domains of activity, even though it might also be logically associated with digital literacy. Key terms that belong within its lexicon include: • •

Big data Raw data

• • • • • • • •

Metadata Real-time data Open data Linked data Visual data Personal data Public data Smart data

Apart from these explicit terms – which can be found across many domains of activity, not just teaching and learning – there are now devices and apps that provide virtual experiences that produce and consume virtual data that enable real experiences yet to be classified. At the same time, these apps collect our real data when we ‘agree’ to download these applications on our personal devices. Agreeing to the fine print may have become a routine act but if we are to be educated for the times we live in we need to comprehend the implications. We need to develop a clear understanding based upon discerning what has been collected and where it is being sent. In everyday discourse data has also become embedded as term with some very different meanings – for example, it is common to refer to mobile phone data or online activities as using ‘data’. Within the context of mobile plans, the connection between different kinds of activities – from checking emails to watching videos to listening music, are all linked to the usage of ‘data’ that is mostly not clear nor differentiated (such as 120 megabytes being roughly equivalent to 120 emails, or 360 visits to webpages, or 40 minutes of YouTube, or downloading 10 songs etc.).

2. Public Policy Public policy associated with education is typically expressed at the jurisdictional and institutional levels. As a consequence of recognising global trends, it is increasingly common for reports from non-governmental organisations and private consortia to gain prominence in setting agendas – and therefore, in influencing policies. The New Vision for Education from the WEF in 2016 and the Millennium Development Goals articulated by UNESCO in 2000 followed by the Sustainable Development Goals in 2015 are all cases in point.

2.1 Global Agendas The 21st Century is already awash with data. Individuals, including children, are both bombarded with data, and are themselves data, and amid the multiple literacies that are appropriated and apportioned to various tasks and agendas it can be easy to lose sight of the roles that literacy and numeracy continue to have. While such foundation as ‘literacies’ (WEF, 2016) might describe what an individual needs to be equipped for lifelong learning and live a better life there is a third foundation upon which most of the new literacies depend. That requires discernment and discrimination – even wisdom. The integrated framework of 21st Century Skills commissioned by the World Economic Forum (2015) reframes education priorities into three strands that aim to be responsive to the dynamics of this century. Hence, there are Foundational Literacies (literacy, numeracy, ICT literacy, financial literacy, and cultural and civic literacy); Competencies (critical thinking, creativity, communication and collaboration; and Character Qualities (curiosity, initiative, persistence, adaptability, leadership and social and cultural awareness). It is also instructive to consider this framework in terms of its sub-heading: Fostering Social and Emotional Learning through Technology. Within this framework the role of critical thinking is potentially at the fulcrum. That is, insightful and discriminating thinking that cultivates personal and social wisdom, as opposed to that which is cynical and dismissive (Wright, 2003). This kind of thinking is not new of course. It has its roots deep in pedagogical thought: phronesis, Aristotle’s Practical Wisdom. John Dewey, who is arguably the founder of democratic education, also recognized its importance (Hickman & Spadafora, 2009). His call for educators to promote this nuanced, situated, not black-and white discernment is being advocated with increasing urgency by pedagogues who see dire limitation to instrumentalist

approaches and technical rationalities (Smith, 1999; Shulman, 2007; Lunenberg & Korthagen, 2009; Hooks, 2010; Schwartz & Sharpe, 2006, 2010; Schussler & Murrell, 2016). Cultivating this discriminate thinking serves lifelong learning and wellbeing (Ardelt & Oh, 2016) and has uptake across the professions (Kronman, 1986; Melé, 2010; Carr, Bondi & Clark, 2011; Kinsella & Pitman, 2012), to cite but a few. Such discriminate thinking is not a solely rational cognitive function. Discrimination also functions in affective and kinesthetic ways. Arguably, discrimination also has a dark side when manifest as racism or bigotry of any kind. But this is our point – to be discriminate requires the identification of at least two distinctions: right versus wrong, safety versus danger, abstract versus concrete, odd versus even, rational versus irrational, etc. In many ways it both requires and extends beyond critical thinking. Creative competency is also required to imagine relationships between what might be actual and what might be possible. To be discriminate requires pause to envision different directions, have empathy, perceive connections, and to imagine real consequences. Choices are made knowingly, emotion and imagination are also at play – and quite different from spontaneous reactions to preferences. Importantly, this can be taught (Garrison, 2010).

3. Conclusions In drawing this discussion to a close we are acutely aware that our own investigation into this topic represents initial findings as a work-in-progress. The two key findings to date are as follows: (1) While there are numerous conceptualisations of what 21st century teaching and learning entail, the alignment between the foundations of high stakes literacy and numeracy testing on the one hand and the skills and competencies expressed in various formulations of 21st century skills appears to be only beginning to take place; and, (2) Missing from public policy associated with the foundations of an appropriate education for the 21st century is any detailed discussion of the role of discrimination. We see such an ability as an essential dimension for the development of an informed, wise, and just society and at least as important as the other so-called 21st century skills. In short, discrimination needs to be expressed in terms other than as a ‘character quality’ (WEF, 2016).

References Ardelt, M., & Oh, H. (2016). Correlates of Wisdom. The Encyclopaedia of Adulthood and Aging. Athanases, S. Z., Bennett, L., & Wahleithner, J. M. (2013). Fostering Data Literacy through Preservice Teacher Inquiry in English Language Arts. The Teacher Educator, 48(1), 8–28. Barton, D, & Hamilton, M. (2000). Literacy Practices, in D. Barton, M. Hamilton, & R. Ivanic (Eds.) Situated Literacies: Reading and Writing in Context. pp. 7-15. New York, NY: Routledge. Barton, D., Ivanic, R., Appleby, Y., Hodge, R., & Tusting, K. (2007). Literacy, Lives, and Learning. Abingdon, Oxon, UK: Routledge. Bruce, C. S. (1997). The Seven Faces of Information Literacy. Adelaide: Auslib Press. Bruce, C. S. (1999). Workplace experiences of information literacy. International Journal of Information Management, 19, 33–47. Bruce, C. S. (2004). Information literacy as a catalyst for educational change. A background paper, in Danaher, P.A. (Ed.), Lifelong Learning: Whose Responsibility and What is Your Contribution?, 3rd International Lifelong Learning Conference, Yeppoon, Queensland, pp. 8-19. Calzada Prado, J., & Marzal, M. Á. (2013). Incorporating data literacy into information literacy programs: Core competencies and contents. Libri, 63(2), 123-134. Carr, D., Bondi, L., & Clark, C. (2011). Towards professional wisdom: Practical deliberation in the people professions. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd.. Chrisomalis, S. (2009). The origins and coevolution of literacy and numeracy. In Dr. R. Olson & N. Torrance (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Literacy, pp. 59-74. Cohen, V. (1989). News and Numbers. Ames, IA Iowa State University Press. Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (2015). Interpreting Evidence-of-Learning: Educational research in the era of big data. Open Review of Educational Research, 2(1), 218–239. http://doi.org/10.1080/23265507.2015.1074870

Crosby, A. W. (1997). The measure of reality: Quantification in Western Europe, 1250-1600. Cambridge University Press. Davies, T., & Edwards, D. (2012). Emerging Implications of Open and Linked Data for Knowledge Sharing in Development. IDS Bulletin, 43(5), 117–127. Deahl, E. (2014). Better the Data You Know: Developing Youth Data Literacy in Schools and Informal Learning Environments (Master of Science). Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Boston, MA. Retrieved from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2445621 Dudley, U. (1997). Numerology: or, what Pythagoras wrought. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. Garrison, J. (2010). Wisdom and desire in the art of teaching. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing Inc. Griffin, P., McGaw, B., & Care, E. (Eds.). (2012). Assessment and Teaching of 21st Century Skills. London: Springer. Gummer, E. S., & Mandinach, E. B. (2015). Building a Conceptual Framework for Data Literacy. Teachers College Record, 117(040305), 1–22. Hickman, L. A., & Spadafora, G. (2009). John dewey's educational philosophy in international perspective : A new democracy for the twenty-first century (2nd ed.). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press. Jisc. (2014). Developing Digital Literacies – A Guide. Retrieved, May 31, 2016, from https://jisc.ac.uk/full-guide/developing-digital-literacies Jisc. (2015). Building Digital Capability – Building new capability for digital leadership, pedagogy and efficiency. Retrieved, May 31, 2016 from https://www.jisc.ac.uk/rd/projects/building-digital-capability Johnston, L., Lafferty, M., & Petsan, B. (2012). Training Researchers on Data Management: A Scalable, Cross-Disciplinary Approach. Journal of eScience Librarianship, 1(2), 79–87. doi:10.7191/jeslib.2012.1012 Kinsella, E. A., & Pitman, A. (Eds.). (2012). Phronesis as professional knowledge: Practical wisdom in the professions (Vol. 1). Springer Science & Business Media. Koltay, T. (2015). Data literacy: in search of a name and identity. Journal of Documentation, 71(2), 401–415. http://doi.org/10.1108/JD-02-2014-0026 Kronman, A. (1986). Practical wisdom and professional character. Social Philosophy and Policy, 4(01), 203-234. Lankshear, C. & Knobel, M. (2007). Sampling ‘the new’ in new literacies, in Knobel, M.L.C. (Ed.), A New Literacies Sampler, pp. 1-24. New York, NY: Peter Lang. Lunenberg, M., & Korthagen, F. (2009). Experience, theory, and practical wisdom in teaching and teacher education. Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice, 15(2), 225-240. Mandinach, E. B., & Gummer, E. S. (2013). A Systemic View of Implementing Data Literacy in Educator Preparation. Educational Researcher, 42(1), 30–37. http://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X12459803 Martin, E. R. (2014). What is Data Literacy? Journal of eScience Librarianship, 3(1): Article 6, 1–2. http://doi.org/10.7191/ jeslib.2014.1069 Melé, D. (2010). Practical wisdom in managerial decision making. Journal of Management Development, 29(7/8), 637-645. Misson, R. & Mason, J. (1997). Extending the Meaning of Literacy, in Mason, J., Nott, M., Fung, J., Hart, G., & McTigue, P. (Eds), Proceedings, Doing IT at Melbourne (DITAM 97), University of Melbourne, pp. 129-134 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2013) PISA 2012 assessment and analytical framework: Mathematics, reading, science, problem solving and financial literacy. Paris. Qin, J., & D’Ignazio, J. (2010). Lessons learned from a two-year experience in science data literacy education. International Association of Scientific and Technological University Libraries, 31st Annual Conference. Paper 5. http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/iatul2010/conf/day2/5 Riel, J., Christian, S., & Hinson, B. (2012). Charting digital literacy: A framework for information technology and digital skills in the community college. Presented at the Innovations 2012, Philadelphia, PA: League for Innovation in the Community College. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282861959 Roca, E. (2008). Introducing practical wisdom in business schools. Journal of Business Ethics, 82(3), 607-620. Rumsey, D. J. (2002). Statistical literacy as a goal for introductory statistics courses. Journal of Statistics Education, 10(3), 6-13. SBS, (2016). The Dark Net – Documentary, Series 1, Episode 2, Upgrade. Special Broadcasting Services (SBS), Australia. Retrieved from http://www.sbs.com.au/ondemand/program/2243/Dark-Net Schussler, D. L., & Murrell Jr, P. C. (2016). Quality Teaching as Moral Practice: Cultivating Practical Wisdom. In J. C. K. Lee & C. Day (Eds.) Quality and Change in Teacher Education (pp. 277-291). Springer International Publishing. Schwartz, B & Sharpe, KE 2006, 'Practical wisdom: Aristotle meets positive psychology', Journal of Happiness Studies, vol. 7, pp. 377-95. Schwartz, B., & Sharpe, K. (2010). Practical wisdom: The right way to do the right thing. Penguin. Shulman, L. S. (2007). Response to comments: Practical wisdom in the service of professional practice. Educational Researcher, 36(9), 560-563. Singh, S. (1997). Fermat’s enigma. Walker and Company, New York.

Smith, R. (1999). Paths of judgement: The revival of practical wisdom. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 31(3), 327-340. Steen, L. A. (1999). Numeracy: The new literacy for a data-drenched society. Educational Leadership, 57, 8-13. Steen, L. A. (2001). Mathematics and numeracy: Two literacies, one language. The mathematics educator, 6(1), 10-16. Stordy, P. (2015). Taxonomy of literacies. Journal of Documentation, 71(3), 456–476. http://doi.org/10.1108/JD-10-2013-0128. Street, B. (1984). Literacy in Theory and Practice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Sullivan, P. (2011). Teaching mathematics: Using research-informed strategies. Australian Council For Educational Research Press. Vahey, P., Yarnall, L., Patton, C., Zalles, D., & Swan, K. (2006, April). Mathematizing middle school: Results from a cross-disciplinary study of data literacy. Paper presented at the annual conference of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA. Voogt, J., Erstad, O., Dede, C., & Mishra, P. (2013). Challenges to learning and schooling in the digital networked world of the 21st century. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29, 403–413. Wells, D. G. (2008). What's the Point?: Motivation and the Mathematics Crisis. Press. Rain Wells, D. G. (2015). Motivating Mathematics: Engaging Teachers and Engaged Students. Imperial College Press Williamson, B. (2015). Smarter learning software: Education and the big data imaginary. Presented at the Big Data – Social Data, Warwick, UK: University of Warwick. Retrieved from http://rms.stir.ac.uk/converis-stirling/publication/20253 World Economic Forum. (2016). New Vision for Education: Fostering Social and Emotional Learning through Technology. Switzerland. Retrieved from http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_New_Vision_for_Education.pdf Wright, A. (2003). The contours of critical religious education: knowledge, wisdom, truth. British Journal of Religious Education, 25(4), 279-291. Zilinski, L., Sapp Nelson, M. R., & Van Epps, A. S. (2014). Developing professional skills in STEM students: Data information literacy. Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.5062/F42V2D2Z.