The previous sections discussed the industry content of the academic standards and the academic content of the industry skill standards. This section will look at the extent to which both types of standards call for process-oriented skills. This is important because it is in this area where the most overlap between the two types of standards occurs. In workplace applications, these are referred to as SCANS skills (so called because they were developed by the Secretary's Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills) or advanced generic skills (SCANS, 1991; Stasz et al., 1996). The New Standards project (National Center on Education and the Economy, 1997) refers to a similar collection of crossfunctional skills as Applied Learning Skills. Put simply, SCANS emphasizes the ability to solve problems, to find and use information, and to work with others. It does not specify any particular substantive knowledge as a "necessary skill," since the authors envisioned that representatives of specific occupations would establish specific skill requirements for their occupations. SCANS skills include the following five broad "competencies" and three "foundation skills":
Although, in most cases, the industry skill standards do not explicitly call for SCANS skills, this conceptualization has been influential in thinking about skill requirements for work. (Current plans for systems developed under the auspices of the National Skill Standards Board do call explicitly for standards that include the SCANS framework.) Each of the seven industry skill standards considered at the conference had some subset of SCANS-like skills. Problem solving and teamwork were the most common. For example, the health care standards listed communication, systems, employability skills (e.g., professional conduct and appearance), ethics, and teamwork in their core standards (Far West Laboratory, 1995, pp. 15-16). EIF standards included "desirable behavior and work habits" such as work ethics and behavior, interpersonal skills, and teamwork (Electronic Industries Association and Electronic Industries Foundation, 1994, p. 2-1). The auto standards focused on how "academic skills" such as reading comprehension, writing, and listening can be used to "verify, identify, and solve problems" (NATEF, 1995, p. 1). Metalworking included decisionmaking, problem solving, group skills, and personal qualities in their list of "knowledge, skills, abilities and other characteristics" (National Tooling and Machining Association, 1994). Bioscience connects the need for employee "attributes" such as accountability, common sense, flexibility, and leadership to its scenarios and problem statements (Education Development Center, 1995). The AEA standards list "thinking skills which include creative thinking, problem solving and decision making, abstract thinking and knowing how to learn" (AEA, 1997 [brochure]).
The academic standards also included sets of skills that sound very similar. The English standards are dominated by process-oriented skills that could easily fit into the SCANS list as the three standards below illustrate:
Standard #4: Students adjust their use of spoken, written, and visual languages (e.g., conventions, style, and vocabulary) to communicate effectively with a variety of audiences and for different purposes. Standard #7: Students conduct research on issues and interests by generating ideas and questions, and by posing problems. They gather, evaluate, and synthesize data from a variety of sources (e.g., print and non-print texts, artifacts, and people) to communicate their discoveries in ways that suit their purpose and audience. Standard #8: Students use a variety of technological and informational resources (e.g., libraries, databases, computer networks, and video) to gather and synthesize information and to create and communicate knowledge. (NCTE and International Reading Association, 1996, p. 3)
The science
standards advocate some fundamental changes in emphasis that are very much
consistent with the shift towards a SCANS perspective. Table 1 illustrates this
new emphasis on a more "applied" approach to science. For example, instead of
instruction focusing on "getting an answer," students are now encouraged to use
"evidence and strategies for developing or revising an explanation" for their
findings. Understanding scientific concepts and developing abilities of inquiry
are now emphasized more than simply knowing scientific fact and information
(National Research Council, 1996, p. 113).
Less Emphasis on |
More Emphasis on |
| Knowing scientific facts and information | Understanding scientific concepts and developing abilities of inquiry |
| Studying subject matter disciplines (physical, life, earth sciences) for their own sake | Learning subject matter disciplines in the context of inquiry, technology, science in personal and social perspectives, and the history and nature of science |
| Activities that demonstrate and verify science content | Activities that investigate and analyze science questions |
| Getting an answer | Using evidence and strategies for developing or revising an explanation |
| Individuals and groups of students analyzing and synthesizing data without defending a conclusion | Groups of students often analyzing and synthesizing data after defending conclusions |
| Private communication of student ideas and conclusions to teacher | Public communication of student ideas and work to classmates |
Source: National Research Council, 1996, p. 113
The mathematics standards also call for a change of emphasis. They call for more active student involvement in constructing and applying mathematical ideas and problem solving as a means as well as a goal of instruction. In addition, the mathematical standards emphasize the development of effective questioning techniques that promote student interaction and communication of mathematical ideas both orally and in writing (NCTM, 1989).
Furthermore, the history standards emphasize the development of "historical thinking skills" and "historical understanding" in addition to knowledge of particular historical events. These are defined as follows:
Historical thinking skills: Enable differentiation of past, present, and future time; raise questions; seek and evaluate evidence; compare and analyze historic stories, illustrations, and records from the past; interpret the historical record; construct historical narratives of their own: 1) chronological thinking, 2) historical comprehension, 3) historical analysis and interpretation, 4) historical research capabilities, and 5) historical issues-analysis an decision making. Historical understandings: define what students should know about history of families, their communities, states, nation and world. (National Center for History in the Schools, 1996, p. 2)
Thus, both sets of standards call for strengthening problem solving, teamwork, inquiry, and communication. They emphasize the use of a variety of sources of information to investigate issues and arrive at answers and solutions, and they advocate the use of different means and media to communicate those solutions. Therefore, generic or process skills provide the most explicit area of common ground between the academic and industry skill standards.
Nevertheless, this recognition is only a first step. A great deal of work remains to be done. We already know that context matters in acquiring skills and knowledge in the first place (Perkins & Salomon, 1989), but the precise relationship between generic and specific skills is still a puzzle. And problem solving is a complicated set of skills and processes that vary in different situations (Stasz et al., 1996). Furthermore, while there is some consensus that these skills are important, much more needs to be done to establish appropriate measures and assessments for generic or process skills. The performance criteria developed by the New Standards Project (National Center on Education and the Economy, 1997) to assess student progress in relation to the Applied Learning Skills represents a promising start to this task.
The problem of defining and evaluating cross-functional skills offers many opportunities for academic and industry skill standards developers to work together. First they must continue the work on determining the generic versus specific components of these process skills. Ultimately, these standards will only be meaningful to the extent that they can be assessed, so both academic and industry groups have a large stake in the success of those efforts.