Key 21 Century Competencies in Curricula in Montenegro

Bureau for Education Services of Montenegro

Education For Life: KEY 21ST CENTURY COMPETENCIES IN CURRICULA IN MONTENEGRO Executive Summary

Podgorica, 2017.

Bureau for Education Services of Montenegro

Ana PEŠIKAN Zoran LALOVIĆ

Education For Life: KEY 21ST CENTURY COMPETENCIES IN CURRICULA IN MONTENEGRO Executive Summary

Podgorica, 2017. Publisher: UNICEF Montenegro

Authors: Ana Pešikan Zoran Lalović

Edited by: Sanja Marjanović

Photography: UNICEF Montenegro Duško Miljanić

Design and prepress: IMPULS studio

Print: Pro File, Podgorica

Circulation: 120

Published: Podgorica, 2017.

The paper is a result of the research into socio-emotional and key competencies in primary, secondary and pre-service teacher training curricula in Montenegro, conducted within the framework of the “My Values and Virtues project (2015–2018) – support to schools in developing selected 21st century competencies”, (UNICEF Montenegro). The statements in this publication are the views of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the policies or the views of UNICEF. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The paper before you is the result of the research into socio-emotional and key competencies in primary, secondary and pre-service teacher training curricula in Montenegro, conducted within the framework of the ‘My Values and Virtues’ project (2015–2018) – giving support to schools in developing selected 21st century competencies (UNICEF, Montenegro). Adequate preparation of young people for their future professions and the labour market is a prerequisite for their employment and future careers. The research goal, thus, was to examine to what extent socio-emotional and key competencies are systematically and consistently integrated in Montenegrin primary, secondary and pre- service teacher training curricula. Key 21st century competencies (hereinafter: KC21) is a construct already widely written about in the previous century (e.g. Delor, 1996). Different terms are encountered in literature: transferable knowledge, key skills, core skills, soft skills, generic skills, deeper learning, college and career readiness, student-centred learning, next-generation learning, new basic skills, higher-order thinking, but the most comprehensive is the twenty-first- century skills (Barrie, 2006; Boud and Garrick, 1999; Bridges, 2006; Crebert et al., 2004; Curry and Sherry, 2004; Pelegrino and Hilton, 2013; Tennant, 1999). These terms cover academic, work-related, social and personal competencies, cognitive and non-cognitive ones, such as critical thinking, problem solving, cooperation, effective communication, motivation, persistence, learning to learn, IT literacy, social and emotional skills, and at times also creativity, innovation and ethics. These are the competencies which may be developed in different situations, formal and/or informal contexts (Boyce et al., 2001; Curry and Sherry, 2004) and they are ‘generic’, more general than the knowledge and skills related to the context in which they were acquired (Tennant, 1999). They may be demonstrated in all academic areas and subjects and are important for educational achievements, but also for subsequent achievements in work and other areas of adult responsibilities. These are frequently defined as core knowledge, skills, attitudes and visible behaviours leading to excellence on the job. As the nature and appearance of workplaces changed, so did the demands for education and the competencies needed (McLaughlin, 1995). Many countries transitioned from an industry-based to an information-based economy. Employers today expect formal education to offer learning which enables adaptability and flexibility, and create labour skilled in communication and quickly and readily applying their existing knowledge and skills in new situations (Boud and Garrick, 1999a; Tennant, 1999). The leading principle in making the employability skills profile is that the workforce of today and of tomorrow needs generic basic competencies much more than competencies specific to the given occupation, level of responsibility or ones limited to today’s jobs (Griffin, McGaw & Care, 2012). In order to respond to those challenges, schools and universities must transform themself so as to enable students to have sophisticated critical thinking abilities, to be flexible in solving problems and develop collaboration and communication skills (Binkley et al., 2012) necessary for a successful life and work in today’s ever more complex and turbulent times.

Education for Life: Key 21St Century Competencies in Curricula in Montenegro - Executive Summary 5 SCOPE

The research aims to analyse the presence of KC21 in primary, general secondary and pre-service teacher training curricula in Montenegro. We analysed the cross-sectional issues (KC21 in the curricula at each level of education covered) and their vertical alignment, their joint planned actions to prepare children and young people for further education and work.

METHODOLOGY

The research was explorative, using the content analysis methodology. Each phrase referring to any of the KC21 categories was a unit of analysis. The research tool was the KC21 framework. Firstly we carried out detailed comparative analysis of 15 of the best known and most frequently used frameworks of KC21 around the world (Ananiadou & Claro, 2009; ATC21S, 2009; Binkley et al., 2010; Binkley et al., 2012; CASEL, 2003; Curtis, 2004; Curtis & McKenzie, 2001; Dede, 2010; DeSeCo, 2005; European Commission, 2006; Finegold & Notabartolo, 2010; ISTE, 200, 2007; McLaughlin, 1995; Ministry of Education–Singapore, 2010a,b; NCREL & Metiri Group, 2003; OECD, 2005; Oliva, 2003; NETS•S/ISTE, 2007; Partnership for 21st Century Skills, 2009; Rychen & Salganik, 2003; Salas, Bedwell & Fiore, 2011; Scardamalia, et al., 2012; Trilling & Fadel, 2009; US Department of Labor, SCANS, 1991; Voogt & Roblin, 2010; Wheeler, Renchler, Conley & Summerlight, 2000). A large proportion of the competencies are the same in all models, with the differences among them stemming from the different purposes for which they were developed. Each has some upsides and some downsides, and since none included all the competencies that we believe to be important for employment and success in one’s work, we came up with our own KC21 classification, used later on as the research tool (Table 1).

6 Table 1. List of socio-emotional and key competencies for students (Pešikan & Lalović, 2016)

Competency Sub-category 1.1. Self-awareness; 1.2. Self-regulation 1.3. Social awareness 1. Socio-emotional skills 1.4. Social skills 1.4.1. Collaboration 1.4.2. Citizenship & social responsibility 1.5. Decision making 2.1. Problem solving 2. Problem solving 2.2. Research skills 3. Critical thinking 4. Creativity & innovation 5. Information literacy 6.1. Developing of ICT literacy 6. ICT literacy 6.2. Application of ICT literacy in other areas of learning and work 7. Learning to learn & metacognition 8. Working skills, entrepreneurship & productivity 9.1. Health, healthy lifestyles 9. Life skills 9.2. Ecological awareness

The sample consisted of: primary school curricula; general secondary school curricula; pre-service teacher training curricula (lists of courses); education laws and policies which were used as a basis for curriculum design; curricula for the following subject areas: Language and Literature, and History (goals, objectives, activities and outcomes) for the case study analysis.

We analysed the objectives and outcomes of all mandatory subjects and a sample of electives in primary and general secondary schools: Tables 1−5. As for the electives, the sample was made to include those subjects which, according to the Bureau for Education’s survey, were most frequently chosen during the academic year 2015–2016.

Education for Life: Key 21St Century Competencies in Curricula in Montenegro - Executive Summary 7 Table 2. An overview of mandatory subjects in primary schools covered by the analysis

LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE (grades 1–9) MATHS (grades 1–9) FOREIGN LANGUAGE (ENGLISH, GERMAN, RUSSIAN, FRENCH, ITALIAN) ARTS (grades 1–9) MUSIC (grades 1 – 9) NATURE AND SOCIETY (grades 1, 2 and 3) SOCIETY (grades 4 and 5) CIVIC EDUCATION (grades 6 and 7) HISTORY (grades 6–9) GEOGRAPHY (grades 6–9) NATURE AND TECHNOLOGY (grade 4) NATURE (grades 5 and 6) BIOLOGY WITH ECOLOGY (grade 7) BIOLOGY (grades 8 and 9 ) CHEMISTRY (grades 8 and 9) PHYSICS (grades 7–9) BASICS OF ENGINEERING (grades 6 and 7) INFORMATION SCIENCE (grade 6) PHYSICAL EDUCATION (grades 1–9)

Table 3. An overview of mandatory subjects in general secondary school covered by the analysis

LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE MATHS FOREIGN LANGUAGES (ENGLISH, GERMAN, RUSSIAN, FRENCH, ITALIAN) HISTORY PHYSICAL EDUCATION MUSIC ART LATIN GEOGRAPHY BIOLOGY CHEMISTRY PHYSICS PSYCHOLOGY SOCIOLOGY PHILOSOPHY INFORMATION SCIENCE Table 4. Electives in primary school covered by the analysis

SPORT FOR ATHLETES (grades 7–9) FOREIGN LANGUAGES (ENGLISH, GERMAN, RUSSIAN, FRENCH, ITALIAN) TEXT LAYOUT AND DESIGN LITERARY AND JOURNALISTIC WORKSHOP HEALTHY LIFESTYLES (grade 8 or 9) INTERESTING GEOGRAPHY (grade 8) ENTREPRENEURSHIP (grade 8)

Table 5. Electives in general secondary school covered by the analysis

DEBATE ECOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ETHICS EUROPEAN INTEGRATION CIVIC EDUCATION COMMUNICOLOGY THE INDIVIDUAL IN A GROUP SOCIOLOGY OF CULTURE SPORT GAMES TOURIST GEOGRAPHY OF MONTENEGRO ARTS AND VISUAL COMMUNICATION HEALTHY LIFESTYLES

Apart from curriculum analysis, we also analysed legal texts and policies pertaining to education (Table 8), serving as the basis for curriculum design in Montenegro, and with which curricula are supposed to be aligned.

Table 6. Legal texts and other relevant documents covered by the analysis The Basis for Curriculum Reform, Montenegro’s Curriculum Council, Podgorica: FOSI, UNICEF, OSEP SEE, 2002. Law on Primary Education Law on General Secondary Education Law on Higher Education Law on Education and Upbringing of Children with Special Educational Needs Strategy for the Development of General Secondary Education (2015−2020) Inclusive Education Strategy (2014−2018) Primary Education and Upbringing Strategy with the Action Plan (2012−2017) − Draft Strategy for the Development and Financing of Higher Education

Education for Life: Key 21St Century Competencies in Curricula in Montenegro - Executive Summary 9 The sample included the curricula where the KC21 are not systematically of all teacher training departments included in education policy documents. within the University of Montenegro. There is an uneven distribution of KC21 We also analysed the guide for the in the goals of the documents analysed, 1 pre-service studies, the Prospectus where three-quarters of all KC21 (73%) (containing learning outcomes for each are contained in two documents, the study programme at the University of Basis for Curriculum Revision (f=34) Montenegro, but not the objectives) and and the Basic Education Law (f=20). the lists of courses. The findings have shown, however, that this has not been transfered into the FINDINGS primary and general secondary school curricula, i.e. there is a mismatch 1. The findings indicate a serious KC21 between the policy intentions and their gap and their unequal distribution actual implementation. The frequency of in key educational documents (laws, KC21 in other documents is negligible policy papers). The KC21 that we (0−8%), with two documents, Inclusive included in our analysis appear as a Education Strategy (2014−2018) and goal at least in one of the analysed the Law on Upbringing and Education documents. The most frequently occurring are social awareness (f=15 of Children with Special Learning or 20% of all KC21 mentioned), Needs (Art. 7) making no mention of followed by social skills (f=9 or 12%), developing KC21 in learners. learning to learn (f=8 or 11%) and Interestingly, the documents projecting critical thinking, working skills and the education in future (strategies) ecological awareness (f=6 or 8% make less mention of KC21 in each). The documents barely mention education goals compared to the “old” today’s essential competencies, such documents that shaped the existing as: information literacy, ICT literacy, curricula (the curriculum basis, laws), problem solving, responsible decision although the opposite situation would making, collaboration, creativity and be expected, where the new documents responsibility for one’s health and the would include more KC21. health of others, and developing healthy lifestyles. 2. Education laws and policies in Although KC21 do not frequently Montenegro promote learner-centred occur in such documents, particularly curricula, objective- and outcome-based important ones, this finding learning, and focus on learners, not nevertheless indicates the awareness the content. However, there are many among education policy-makers and indicators showing that in primary and legislators of the need to develop KC21 general secondary schools and in pre- in learners. As regards the documents service teacher training in Montenegro relevant to education and pertaining teaching is still more content- to curriculum design, there are basic oriented, and much less focus is grounds for including KC21 in general being given to learning the contents, education curricula in Montenegro, i.e. learner-orientation. There are no but they are not elaborated enough, linkages in the curricula between the KC21 and academic achievements, 1 University of Montenegro, Prospectus, Rectorate of and the major educational role of the University of Montenegro, Podgorica, 2015. KC21 is largely overlooked. The main

10 indicators for the above are: few learner critical thinking, communication skills competencies included in educational and teamwork) match the KC21 policies (particularly those concerning covered by this research and reinforce children with special learning needs and their relevance, and the findings are higher education); few KC21 contained similar to ours, although more positive. in the objectives and outcomes of The practice of active learning was primary, secondary and pre-service assessed as 0.47, critical thinking teacher training curricula; disregard for as 0.41, communication skills and KC21 in science and maths (with the teamwork both as 0.38 (ibid, p. 7). exception of Chemistry); problems in Although this involves the opinions and formulating objectives and outcomes views of participants in the process, (lack of precision and clarity); and no and is not an objective measure of mutual linkages of cross-curricular the changes that actually took place topics with subject-specific objectives compared to the set goals, one of the and outcomes. A particularly compelling conclusions of the reform evaluation indicator of content-orientation is the is that active learning, critical thinking, fact that in teacher training departments communication skills and teamwork are none of the objectives of the hundred or encountered visibly less in curriculum so courses intended for the training of objectives and standards than would be students for teaching (delivery) refers possible or desired (ibid, p. 7). to training teachers-to-be to develop KC21 in learners, and the fact that most 3. We have noted that the wordings of teacher training study programmes curriculum objectives and outcomes have no outcomes intended to develop lack precision and clarity. Clear KC21 in learners (a mere 1.5% of all wording of objectives and outcomes is outcomes concern training teachers to not an easy task; it requires taking a develop KC21 in learners). learner’s angle on the subject, which is radically different from describing Given that all competencies appear a subject based on a list of topics/ in at least one of the documents, it is contents to be covered. Discourse evident that there is an awareness at analysis of objectives and outcomes the education policy level of the need indicates that teaching is still more to include KC21 in curricula, which is content-focused than learner-centred. an important, but only the first, step The formulations are not articulated in their inclusion in teaching. The or elaborated enough, the parts findings regarding the presence of concerning KC21 are more “muddled” KC21 in curricula may be seen as a or “attached” than integrated or sign that, although the educational stemming from the wording of specific policy has embraced the active learning subject objectives/outcomes. Goals and and student-orientation concept, in outcomes need to be clearly worded in practice, this concept has not been fully order to be translated into objectives implemented, not even at the document and activities, particularly since these level. involve skills that may be encouraged Such findings agree with the findings and developed in different ways within of the opinion poll on the results of subject-specific teaching. educational reform in Montenegro (Reškovac & Bešić, 2012). The 4. In summary, looking at education assessed reform goals (active learning, policies and the objectives and

Education for Life: Key 21St Century Competencies in Curricula in Montenegro - Executive Summary 11 outcomes of mandatory and elective learn; and at outcomes only, these subjects in primary and general are: social skills, critical thinking and secondary school, the most frequently health. Social awareness, as the most occurring KC21 are social skills and prevalent of all KC21 in objectives, in critical thinking (Table 7). Looking outcomes appears only in the curricula at objectives only, these are: social of electives in general secondary awareness, social skills, learning to school.

Table 7. A comparative overview of most prevalent KC21 in policy papers, primary and secondary school curricula Social awareness Social skills Critical thinking Information literacy Learning to learn skills Working Ecological awareness Self-awareness Creativity Cooperation Health

OBJECTIVES Policy papers ü ü ü ü ü ü Primary mandatory ü ü ü ü ü ü ü ü ü Primary electives ü ü ü ü Secondary mandatory ü ü ü ü ü ü Secondary electives ü ü ü

OUTCOMES Policy papers ü ü ü Primary mandatory ü ü Primary electives ü ü ü Secondary mandatory ü ü ü

The considerable prevalence of social competencies are barely mentioned competencies (social awareness and in subjects that by their very nature skills) is accounted for by foreign should pursue their development, such language curricula insisting on as History, Nature and Society, Society, respect for other cultures, developing Nature, Information Sciences, PE, Arts, communication skills and tolerance Music, Biology with Ecology, Sport for diversity. Notwithstanding that, the for Athletes, Literary and Journalistic issue of the great prevalence of social Workshop, Healthy Lifestyles, and competences in curricula arose. There Entrepreneurship. Furthermore, the are indications to believe this refers objectives of general secondary more to developing social awareness school curricula make frequent and some declaratory statements than mention of social competencies, a carefully designed development while self-regulation, problem solving of social competencies needed for and decision making are largely efficient teamwork. Thus, social disregarded. In the absence of self-

12 regulation, problem solving and relevance (Table 8): problem solving, decision-making, it is doubtful which information literacy, collaboration, social skills are promoted by the responsible decision making, self- curriculum objectives. It is obvious that direction, citizenship and health the emphasis is not on developing the and pursuing healthy lifestyles. social competencies needed for shared A wider array of these less-present problem solving and for constructive competencies is observed (16 out of and efficient teamwork, posing the 17) than those that are more present question of whether this is just paying (11 out of 17, Table 7) in general lip service to the idea of promoting education curricula. Secondly, there is social skills or whether it results from a mismatch between objectives and the lack of awareness of the role of outcomes, with information literacy each of the skills and their mutual being very present among objectives, linkages. but not found in outcomes, or 5. Overall, least present in educational conversely, self-awareness and working policy and primary and general skills being present in outcomes, but secondary school curricula are not in objectives (Table 8). some KC21 of major educational

Table 8. Comparative overview of the least prevalent KC21 in policy papers, and primary and secondary school curricula Social awareness Critical thinking Information literacy Learning to learn skills Working Ecological awareness Self-awareness Creativity Cooperation Health Citizenship literacy ICT Problem solving Decision-making Self-regulation Research skills

OBJECTIVES Policy papers ü ü ü ü ü ü ü Primary mandatory ü ü ü ü ü ü ü Primary electives ü ü ü ü ü ü ü ü ü ü ü ü Secondary mandatory ü ü ü ü ü ü ü Secondary electives ü ü ü ü ü ü ü ü ü ü

OUTCOMES Policy papers ü ü ü ü ü Primary mandatory ü ü ü ü ü ü ü ü ü ü ü ü ü Primary electives ü ü ü ü ü ü ü Secondary mandatory ü ü ü ü ü ü ü ü ü

Education for Life: Key 21St Century Competencies in Curricula in Montenegro - Executive Summary 13 6. The findings have revealed a highly make no mention of learning to learn, uneven distribution of KC21 in information literacy, ICT literacy or mandatory and elective courses problem solving, often seen as a in primary and general secondary synonym for mathematics itself. This school. As for mandatory subjects is particularly disconcerting given that in primary schools, one-third of them Maths, together with Mother Tongue, (foreign languages, Language and accounts for the largest proportion Literature, Civic Education, Biology and of weekly hours. Additionally, as a Chemistry) cover three-quarters of all rule, it is quite a difficult subject for KC21, and two-thirds of subjects the students, overly abstract, and they remaining one-quarter (28%). There is often fail to see its function or how it a visible absence of KC21 in the syllabi relates to real life. Among the electives, for Maths (5), Physics (0), and Nature European Integration and Ecology (2). As for electives, this discrepancy with Environmental Protection mention is even greater: almost two-thirds are only two and three KC21, respectively, found in foreign language syllabi (62%), which is surprising, since the contents 13% in Entrepreneurship, and 10% of these subjects is such that to learn in Interesting Geography and Healthy them necessarily requires many of the Lifestyles. The remaining 5% of KC21 KC21. are found in the goals of the following Hence, there are many indicators of subjects: Sport for Athletes, Computer the uneven distribution of KC21: there Text Layout and Design, and the is a longish list of mandatory primary Literature and Journalism Workshop. and general secondary school subjects The last finding is particularly with no KC21 in their objectives and surprising, since it involves subjects outcomes; there are many more KC21 highly suitable for the development in social sciences and humanities of many of the KC21 mentioned (like (although not even here do they appear critical thinking information literacy, in all the subjects where they should be ICT literacy, decision making, problem included), they are not very present in solving, health and healthy lifestyles, science, and hardly at all in maths; and social awareness or social skills). they are more seen in their upbringing Similarly to primary schools, the value than the educational one, and largest share of KC21 in the objectives upbringing is largely neglected in of mandatory subjects in general school, particularly in regular teaching secondary schools is contained in and mandatory subjects (Pešikan & language curricula, almost half (45%): Lalović, 2015). The explanation for foreign languages (28%), Language such might KC21 distribution across the and Literature (10%) and Latin (7%). syllabi might not come from their nature Sociology, Psychology and History or status (as mandatory or elective). contain 20.7%; Chemistry and Firstly, these competencies are general Information Sciences 11%; and all the in their nature and belong to all subject other subjects the remaining quarter of areas (that is why they are referred all competencies. There is an evident to as generic) and may be developed absence of KC21 in the learning through all contents, the only difference objectives for Physics (2), Biology (3) being which competencies will be and Maths (3). It is almost unbelievable most emphasised in specific subjects that the learning objectives for Maths (or groups thereof) depending on the

14 epistemological nature of the subjects to another, since it is not logical to and their aims, and to what extent they achieve something not even mentioned are present, whether only mentioned in the plans (objectives). If some as an addition to the subject aim or competencies are missing from the intrinsically built into the aims and objectives, it means that no activities logically linked with the specific subject have been planned for their delivery objectives. to boost their development and thus cannot be expected to appear in 7. There is a serious curriculum outcomes. mismatch. Numerous findings of our analysis show that there is no 8. KC21 are heavily disregarded in internal consistency in the curricula, all pre-service teacher training that there is no alignment of objectives curricula, both as regards developing and outcomes either within one or the KC21 of students themselves among different educational levels (own competencies) and, as teaching (primary – secondary – higher); or students, teachers-to-be, to develop among curriculum elements (aims – KC21 in their learners (preparation objectives – activities – outcomes), as for their occupations). Somewhat shown by analysing two case studies more attention is devoted to the (Language and Literature, and History development of personal competencies for general secondary schools). There of students (one-third of all outcomes is no consistency in having KC21 in the mention some of the KC21), while goals and outcomes of each subject the training of students – teachers-to- within primary or general secondary be - to develop KC21 in their students schools, or among the goals and is completely disregarded. Teacher outcomes in the all primary or general training study programmes have in total secondary education, and this is even 130 outcomes, 46 (or 35%) of which less so following vertical progression refer to the development of KC21. with tertiary education included. For Most KC21 are present in the study instance, some of the competencies, programmes for Geography (f=4) and such as information literacy, are among Russian Language (f=4) (Table 9). In the least present in the objectives the study programme for Maths there is and among the most prevalent in the no single outcome which refers to the outcomes; health appears only in the development of KC21. In the outcomes outcomes of some electives, without of these study programmes there are being mentioned among the objectives. only three (out of 17) competencies There may be more competencies which are slightly more prevalent: among the objectives than among the learning to learn (f=12), collaboration outcomes, since the objectives should (f=11) and critical thinking (f=8) none contain a more long-term vision and include self-awareness, self-regulation, part of what is desired, what we aspire citizenship, decision making, working to, and what we wish to achieve, while skills, health or ecological awareness. outcomes are specific, measurable Social awareness (f=2), problem results towards the achievement of solving (f=2), information literacy (f=2), the set objectives. Hence, such a social skills (f=1) and creativity (f=1) mismatch should not exist at all, where appear rarely. the objectives referring to one set The analysis of the objectives set in the of competences, and the outcomes lists of courses for pre-service training

Education for Life: Key 21St Century Competencies in Curricula in Montenegro - Executive Summary 15 of teachers (95 courses in 18 study (important for developing patterns of programmes) showed that there is professional behaviour), and secondly, no single objective clearly expressing since this is a teaching profession, the intention to train teachers-to-be teachers-to-be should in the course to develop the KC21 in their learners, of their pre-service training become needed for further schooling or aware of the importance of these employment. competencies and learn how to foster In the analysed lists of pre-service their development in their future teacher training courses (f=95), learners. Such findings indicate the each course has, on average, 10 split between the education policy outcomes. Among these outcomes and the training of teachers who are we have identified only 15 (1.5%) that supposed to put these policies into referring to training of teachers-to-be practice. Learner orientation is still not to develop KC21 in learners, which is integrated into curricula, not even the almost negligible. We underscore that teacher training ones (very rarely found these do not involve subject-specific in objectives and outcomes), which are not keeping pace with the changes in courses, but those courses intended for the national education policy. professional training of future teachers, their preparation for classroom delivery. Such findings indicate the split between Such findings indicate that the largest education policy and the training of share of courses intended to train teachers who are supposed to put these future teachers have no outcomes policies into practice, which coincides aimed at developing KC21 in learners. with the finding of the EU analysis of The largest share of KC21 is found teacher training in the Western Balkans in the study programmes for Primary (European Commission, 2013). On School Teachers (4), Sociology (4) one hand, teacher training curricula and Philosophy (f=2); while in History, are not keeping pace with the changes Montenegrin Language and South in education policy, and on the other, Slavic Literature, Serbian Language there is not enough research to shape and South Slavic Literature, Russian and inform the education policy. Language and Literature, and French Learner orientation is still not integrated in teacher training curricula (rarely Language and Literature we have found in objectives or outcomes) with identified only one outcome in each that led-from-the-front approach largely is intended to develop KC21 in learners dominating the practice instead of (Table 82). It is noteworthy that the active learning. study programme for Primary School Teachers has 31 courses for training Our findings match those of external future teachers for classroom delivery, evaluation of higher education (Report and only four express expectations that on External Evaluation of Higher teachers-to-be will be trained to foster Education Institutions in Montenegro, and develop some of the KC21 in their 2014), noting, inter alia: leaners. “Conducting three cycles has not led The fact that KC21 are rarely found to comprehensive reconsideration of in teacher training curricula poses a curricula” (p. 14). twofold problem: firstly, students fail Learner-centred teaching or to develop the needed competencies programmes or active learning in their core professional training are not developed: “An important

16 aspect of the Bologna reform is the development or outcome-based student-centred and outcome-based approaches... Most Montenegrin approach. Both concepts exist in students will study without clearly Montenegro, but only in rudimentary defined outcomes. Moreover, form. Thus, the managements of students do not always understand many institutions are aware of the the expected learning results, and need to move towards more active the flexibility of learning through the learning methods...“ (p. 14). selection of electives is limited” (p. Employers “might be satisfied with 14). bachelor graduates provided that The recommendations ask for their education involved certain “all curricula to state the course practical experience and the objectives” (p.15). acquiring soft skills” (p. 13). “The Bologna principles do not seem to be fully reflected or incorporated in areas such as study programme

Education for Life: Key 21St Century Competencies in Curricula in Montenegro - Executive Summary 17 Table 9. KC21 in outcomes of teacher training study programmes at the University of Montenegro

Personal development outcomes for students literacy AL OT 1.1.Self-awareness 1.2.Self-regualtion 1.3.Social awareness 1.4.Social skills 1.4.1. Collaboration 1.4.2. Citizenship and social responsibility 1.5.Responsible decision-making 2.1.Problem Solving 2.2.Research skills 3. Critical thinking 4. Creativity and innovation 5. Information literacy 6ICT 7. Learning to learn, meta-cognition 8. Entrepreneurship 9.1. Health, healthy lifestyles 9.2. Ecological awareness T Philosophy 2 2 Sociology 1 1 History 1 1 2 Pedagogy 1 1 2 Teacher training 1 1 1 3 Teacher training in Albanian 1 1 2 Geography 1 1 1 1 4 Psychology 1 1 2 Montenegrin language and South Slavic liter. 1 1 1 3 Serbian language and South Slavic literature 1 1 English language and literature 1 1 Russian language and literature 1 1 1 1 4 Italian language and literature 1 1 2 French language and literature 1 1 2 German language and literature 1 1 2 Mathematics 0 Mathematics and computer science 1 1 Physics 1 1 1 3 Biology 1 1 Computer science and IT 1 1 1 3 Study programme General music pedagogy 1 1 2 Study programme Physical education 1 1 1 3 TOTAL 0 0 2 1 11 0 0 2 4 8 1 2 3 12 0 0 0 46 There is little empirical research into education levels aims which must the quality of teaching at the University not be forgotten in education, and of Montenegro, and the little that is which cannot be pursued within available confirms the findings of the span of one school hour or the external evaluation and indicate year. These are objectives pursued that higher education teaching is still not by direct study, but rather predominantly content-based, not by the methodology, such as for learner-centred, which is contrary to instance, applying critical thinking modern teaching/learning concepts in presentations and analysing in higher education and the spirit certain phenomena in class or of the Bologna Declaration, which applying the problem discourse in incorporates such concepts (See teaching, teacher’s demonstration Joksimović & Pešikan, in press). of the manner in which one should think or work in the given discipline, 9. The problem is that the Prospectus respecting professional standards presenting the courses of study at the and behavioural patterns, etc. Such University of Montenegro has no long-term objectives often defy objectives stipulated, only outcomes. measurement (how can we precisely This is in many ways a deficient measure one’s ability to collaborate solution: or one’s environmental awareness?), There is no linear or direct causal contain a part of the bigger picture connection between objectives or constitute an aspiration which and outcomes and these two terms guides and gives nuance to the should not be used interchangeably. work method, the selection of Outcomes are always derived from methodologies and manner of objectives, given that outcomes are assessing achievements, but also just some measurable aspects of the teaching/learning process objectives. Objectives are necessary, itself. The objectives may lead to since they define the framework, many outcomes, even those which course and direction of actions, and cannot easily be measured, such such a framework needs to be the as attitudes, ethical norms or value same for all teachers. They enable systems. The objectives in many teaching strategies, methodologies social studies and humanities cannot be translatable into operationalised and the learner activities to be and measurable outcomes, but by chosen based on them that planning them, believing that they would best suit the set goals. If need to be stipulated as teaching teachers were to have only the objectives, they shape teaching and defined outcomes, there would be affect the shaping of learners. For differences among them as regards instance, an important part of the the purpose, the aim of studying a development of scientific literacy certain subject, as well as the short- in learners is a set of values and term and the long-term effects of responsibilities, as well as ethical such learning. principles (since science is not Objectives contain also the value-neutral) to be contributed to important long-term objectives – by subjects from the area of science, such as the development of KC21 but none of these attitudinal aspects through various subject areas and is a direct outcome of the delivery

Education for Life: Key 21St Century Competencies in Curricula in Montenegro - Executive Summary 19 of a certain curriculum, nor is it easy part of what was learned that we to measure, but is an extremely can observe and measure. We can important education aim that bring to mind learning by model. In teachers need to take into account order for learners to learn, and not during the delivery. only show certain achievements, teaching needs to be an agent of The quality of outcomes cannot change, not just practicing a set of be verified without setting the skills. Reducing objectives down to objectives. If we do not have the precisely set outcomes leaves little aims and objectives set, learning room for involving learners in the outcomes cannot be refined or development of their own learning corrected nor their validity assessed. (learning to learn and metacognition). Properly set objectives and the Setting the course aims before teaching arranged around them may the learners and the discussion lead to different outcomes, so that it around such aims ensures better may happen based on experience understanding of the purpose of that we change the outcomes, add learning and the possibility for better some, redefine others, and modify or linking and the use of knowledge. leave some out. Objectives guide learning and enable Teaching must not be outcome- flexibility in the teaching/learning based because it radically reduces process, allowing benefiting from the curriculum as well as learning spontaneous activities, unintended aims and objectives, leading outcomes that arise during learning. to a depleted understanding of Focusing only on outcomes limits the teaching, learning, curricula and work of teachers. Teaching towards education. Leaving out objectives specific outcomes diminishes the and focusing on measurable possibility for the teacher to play his outcomes only undermines the or her social role, to teach students general democratic mission of to be well-educated, informed, education, its wider societal and productive citizens taking care of democratic aims, processes and their environment. Focusing on consequences, its humanistic, ethical outcomes only leads to “the distorted and aesthetical value (Biggs, 1996; and reductionist conception of Cohran-Smith & Lytle, 2006; Spohn, teaching practice and the work of 2008). Such an approach reduces teachers; and the narrowing of the the possibilities for learning, and purposes of teaching and schooling instead of educating learners, they resulting in an impoverished view of are trained for outcomes. Equalizing the curriculum and the broader social objectives and outcomes and and democratic goals, processes bringing them down to outcomes only and consequences of education” is a behaviouristic reductionism to (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2006: what may be externally observed and 679–680). One of the more serious measured in education. In the theory critiques of the large US movement and practice of education evaluation, No Child Left Behind, whose main one of the basic assumptions is that aim was to increase the quality of learning and achievement are not education for all children, is that the same – achievement is only the teachers started to teach students

20 for outcomes, prepare them for learning objectives and learning tests, not educate them, and the outcomes. Course aims refer to focus on measuring outcomes what the teacher wants to achieve led to a distortion and substantial generally with the course; learning reduction of the curriculum. Whole objectives are much more specific disciplines, such as social sciences and refer to what we expect learners and arts, became neglected given to learn in the given course; and the impossibility of translating learning outcomes are more at the their outcomes into test items. The level of behaviour, the terminological essence is that, through education, description of external observations learners should be prepared “for the of what students will be able to test of life, not the life of tests” (Elias, do once successfully completing 2001). the course (see for instance Light, “Outcome-based education” is by Cox and Calkins, 2011: 75–104; no means education that is devoid Fry, Ketteridge, & Marshall, 2008: of aims or objectives. This is a 26−42). concept which was generated under 10. Finally, in an attempt to see the big the strong economic neo-liberal picture, it may be concluded that, in influence to monitor the efficiency horizontal terms, key competencies of investments in education and needed for employment are to increase productivity by improving a very limited degree integrated labour quality, a pressure which has into the curricula at all levels of led to the development of theoretical education (primary and secondary and practical aspects of education general schools or pre-service teacher evaluation and the gravitation training), and vertically, the higher the towards education results, not only education level is, the fewer KC21 its plans and noble aims. Speaking there are (most in primary, least in about course and curriculum tertiary education) and there is no design, each of the better-known coherence or consistency in their higher education didactic books development. or textbooks talks of course aims,

Education for Life: Key 21St Century Competencies in Curricula in Montenegro - Executive Summary 21 RECOMMENDATIONS them). Thus, the life-long learning concept implies, first and foremost, the Based on the analysis done, our key ability to independently follow, critically recommendation is to increase the assess and acquire new knowledge, to presence of KC21 in curricula, and integrate new knowledge and apply it in introduce horizontal and vertical new and different contexts, to monitor curricular alignment. In order to achieve and evaluate own learning, to develop this, the following are needed: learning skills and intellectual work 1. Clarify the nature of KC21 and their strategies and to have self-awareness place in curricula, from primary and environmental awareness, and all the way up to tertiary education. these are all KC21. The development Such clarification is needed for all of professional patterns and standards education professionals, from policy of conduct is the development of KC21, and decision makers (the Ministry, and higher education is responsible for Bureau for Education, Bureau for that. KC21 are not developed through Textbooks, Examination Centre a separate subject matter, rather they and other education institutions, make up part of academic achievement; organisations or bodies) to those who they are a way of handling professional implement education policy in practice contents, in relation to the specific (primarily teachers). Very little is said knowledge, skills and value systems about key competencies either in that each discipline has. If teaching is the education policy or the teacher- not merely presenting and producing training institutions, leading to frequent contents with understanding, then misunderstanding of the concept. KC21 we are necessarily fulfilling the task do not come as a replacement for of creating learning situations and an subject-specific knowledge and skills, environment conducive to learning, i.e. but do make up a part of the process thinking about the key competencies of acquiring such knowledge. The which are closely linked with the ‘knowledge or skills’ dilemma (often contents of a specific discipline. raised in the context of criticism of the new understanding of education) is a 2. In education policy papers, goals pseudo-dilemma: there are complex need to be better elaborated and interlinkages between acquiring more precisely defined to include the knowledge and developing skills and development of KC21 as a necessary abilities; such goals are essentially element of education objectives and intertwined. Active learning/teaching outcomes and the “toolkit” of today’s methodologies link professional and learners. All documents must be aligned generic competencies, this is a way of with the basic assumptions, principles integrating professional with generic and strategic orientations for education competencies within the frameworks in Montenegro (e.g. proclaimed learner/ of all subjects. Notwithstanding orientation and active learning) and some overlaps, the development of contain general learner goals, which KC21 should not be seen as equal need to state the competencies to upbringing (although KC21 send a (knowledge, skills, attitudes and clear message in regard to upbringing) values) that need to be fostered. or character building (although some This is necessary because such character traits are developed through papers shape curricula in schools and

22 universities, so they have to be a good levels of education and would be the basis for implementing KC21 in syllabi “education backbone” – the consistent and other segments of the general implementation of key education goals. education curriculum in Montenegro. This backbone would, on one hand, These policy documents need to be enable internal logical coherence and consistent about the key competencies education system consistency, and to be developed, particularly in terms on the other, leave plenty of room of vertical alignment, from primary to for autonomous definition of learning tertiary levels of education, for the sake objectives and outcomes in each of of systematic, consistent and synergetic the disciplines and each subject area/ actions at all levels of education. course studied, since the task of subject-specific experts would be to 3. As the Book of Changes was the translate the spirit of the document basis and the framework for the into their specific discipline and previous education reform, now integrate KC21 with subject-specific a new document needs to be competencies. developed to define the directions of the development of education 4. The aims set in education policy in Montenegro, the vision for papers need to be reflected in education, where it should go, the basic curricula for primary and secondary assumptions and values it stands for, schools and pre-service teacher the basic aims, its role compared to training, through learning objectives other sectors and how education can be and outcomes. If the development of a development resource of Montenegro. certain competencies is envisaged in a This document would clearly state the strategy or law, this needs to cascade KC21 that the country believes should down into learning objectives and be fostered through schooling in order outcomes at the level of delivery. This for the new generations, the new forces implies expert discussion around the that should carry out and improve the aims of certain groups of subjects and development of Montenegro, to have individual subjects, and transversal the competencies for this complex and or generic competencies should be responsible role, regardless of their reflected in and integrated into subject- level of education or the job they would specific objectives (for instance, in do. Such a document could rely on the teaching Chemistry, information or ICT outcomes of the projects carried out so literacy, problem solving or working far – one of them inevitably being “My skills must be a part of the process Virtues and Values”, since it steps out of developing chemistry literacy, of the narrow curriculum boundaries laboratory skills, research skills or and opens up the issue of the method project-based work, together with of education, building an integral promoting health and environmental personality, developing a certain value awareness and protection). Hence, system and sees school/university as seen vertically, general policy aims a niche where learners live and which must be consistently translated into shapes them with their school climate primary, secondary and teacher and culture. This new document would training curricula and must consistently then serve as a framework for all integrate KC21. There must be other documents and curricula at all continuity in developing KC21 among

Education for Life: Key 21St Century Competencies in Curricula in Montenegro - Executive Summary 23 and between different education levels, Expert discussions within specific from primary to tertiary. Constructive disciplines must consider which curricular alignment starts with the competencies will be given the focus goal of learners acquiring certain and how these are to be integrated competencies and the understanding with the subject-specific objectives and that learners construct their own outcomes. learning through relevant learning activities. The task of the teacher is 6. There must be horizontal alignment to create a learning environment that of all curriculum elements: aims, will support learning activities whose objectives, suggested activities practicing leads to achieving the and learning outcomes. For a desired learning outcomes. The key well-designed, planned approach to is for all components of the teaching integrating KC21 into curricula, these system – curriculum, objectives, should appear in all curricular elements. planned outcomes, teaching/learning None of these elements should be methods used and the assessment written independently of the others, tasks – to be mutually consistent. They but there must be a logical connection all meet in learning activities and lead to between and coherence among those the desired outcomes. In this approach, elements. The subject aims constitute the teaching situation is so “embedded” what we wish to achieve with the that it is quite unlikely that the learner subject, while learning objectives goes through without learning what is imply what learners should know planned (Biggs, 2003). from the given subject. By applying certain teaching/learning methods, 5. KC21 must be equally distributed learners will be involved in activities among different subjects (science, which are relevant for pursuing the social studies, arts) of different status set objectives, and by practicing such (mandatory and electives). KC21 not activities learners will be able to acquire only have an important role in children’s certain knowledge and skills (learning upbring and education, but are also part outcomes). A curriculum matrix must of the general competencies needed in be in place and each of the elements all areas (subjects), and the focus is on introduced in it to verify how well those affiliated to the subject objectives formulated each of the elements is and and its epistemological nature. If their mutual alignment. Teachers need teaching is not the exposition and genuine support in integrating certain transferal of ready-made knowledge KC21 in delivery. The existence of to students, but rather creates a curricular alignment will greatly facilitate learning environment, designs teaching the teachers’ job, since it will explicitly situations in which learning can occur state expectations and enable more (the active learning concept), then flexible teaching (teachers will know KC21 constitute a part of the mandatory exactly which criteria are to be met by equipment for learning and work and for relevant activities and may, instead of the efficient application of knowledge the offered ones, choose other relevant in new school and life situations (e.g. activities and work strategies, adapted problem solving, responsible decision to the actual environment and features making, information literacy, ICT of the learners, but still leading to the literacy, learning to learn, collaboration). set objectives).

24 7. Cross-curricular topics must be launch a campaign, etc. In the light of clearly defined in the curriculum these findings, cross-curricular topics and be part of the curriculum matrix. should inevitably be revised, their Although such topics are identified proper place in curriculum defined, and places defined in each subject since the existing, quite inadequate where they can connect with the cross- solutions undermine the good concept curricular topics, they do not appear in in the actual delivery. the learning objectives or outcomes, they are not mentioned, rather it is 8. In all curricula, objectives and expected that teachers need to “build” outcomes need better, clearer them into their teaching based on the and more precise definition.It is recommendations given. Since by not an easy task to clearly formulate their nature, cross-curricular topics learning objectives and outcomes, should refer less to themes (contents) since it implies thinking through the and more to the development of purpose of each subject or study transversal competencies pursued programme, why learners study it, through all subjects, they need to be what specifically they will learn within reflected in subject-specific objectives the subject, not having just a list of and outcomes to ensure their delivery topics, but rather what learners could since otherwise what is the obligation do with the given content. Objectives of all, in practice will turn out to be the cannot be a mere decoration to the duty of none. Additionally, if cross- curriculum, meaningless statements, curricular topics (as curricula define just mentioned, and never elaborated them) are intended more to develop through the curriculum. The fact that transversal competencies, the list of KC21 are mostly present in objectives, chosen cross-curricular topics should and are not further elaborated through be reviewed and revised in this light other curriculum elements, shows (e.g. functional literacy is missing, or that a substantial share of them are bio-diversity awareness is a rather just decorations, not an expression of specific ecological topic) and their focus genuine educational intentions as the shifted from contents to competencies linchpin of teaching. to be practiced on the given content to pursue more general education There are numerous criteria for well- goals. In order for learners to master designed objectives and outcomes. KC21, the cross-curricular knowledge Once it was said that four domains standards, in addition to the level of needed to be covered: knowledge and knowledge and understanding, need understanding; key competencies (e.g. to include higher cognitive processes, communication, information literacy, particularly the competencies aspired ICT literacy, learning to learn, problem to by the sustainable development solving); cognitive competencies (e.g. agenda, critical thinking and problem critical thinking, decision making); and solving. Thus, for instance, standards subject-specific competencies (e.g. rarely have formulations such as laboratory skills, establishing proofs). “the learner is able to implement a There are good resource materials small-scale project, or examine a which can serve as a good basis in phenomenon individually or in a group, writing objectives and outcomes (see, critically analyse a text or a media for instance, the revised Bloom’s message, show initiative, organise and Taxonomy of Education Objectives,

Education for Life: Key 21St Century Competencies in Curricula in Montenegro - Executive Summary 25 Anderson, Krathwohl & Bloom, 2001; or Many research findings, particularly in SOLO Taxonomy Biggs & Collis, 2014; the last few decades, clearly show that Anderson, 2013; Kennedy, 2007; or the right place for social and emotional DEVCORE, 2016). competencies is in mandatory teaching in all subject areas and that it should 9. Socio-emotional competencies must make up part of regular teacher make up part of regular teaching activity and regular teaching (Elias and mandatory subjects. There can et al., 1997; Kress, et al., 2004). hardly be any dilemmas around the Learning how to interpret one’s own competencies such as critical thinking, reactions and the reactions of others problem solving, ICT literacy, learning is an extremely important skill, like to learn or information literacy, whether literacy or numeracy (Cohen, 2001), these are to be developed in schools because socio-emotional literacy not or where they belong in curricula. only reduces violence and strengthens However, the same is not the case adaptive capacities of individuals, with socio-emotional competencies but ensures a basis for learning and in schools. They are disregarded in healthy development (Cohen, 2001; the training of teachers-to-be (almost Elias et al., 1997). In order to truly absent from pre-service teacher improve the socio-emotional life of training curricula, almost not learned learners and intensively use capacities at all, even less is said regarding to learn, research shows that schools the methods for developing them in must become such communities learners), as well as in school curricula, where socio-emotional competencies and particularly not in higher education. are integrated with academic learning Teachers and education policy-makers (Elias et al., 1997; CASEL, 2003). Such mostly believe such programmes fall programmes should not be taught as outside the realm of teachers’ work supplements to regular curricula, but and disturb “serious” cognitive work be fully integrated in overall school and school achievements. However, academic programme (Munjas, Samarin there is a compelling body of evidence & Takšić, 2009: 367). Obviously, socio- demonstrating that the development emotional competencies need to be of social and emotional competencies a part of higher education curricula in students is conducive to a better (e.g. they are needed for developing school climate, particularly through professional patterns and standards of establishing and maintaining healthy conducts, business ethics, successful relations with others, development collaboration in teamwork), as well of social awareness (the possibility as make up part of the training of of stepping into others’ shoes and teachers-to-be so that they can support empathy), they improve school the integration of socio-emotional achievements by developing the skills learning into the school system and of listening and focused attention, development of such competencies in responsibility, commitment and learners. perseverance, self-regulation, i.e. ways of controlling and regulating the 10. The curricula of university study expression of one’s own impulses and programmes must have defined aims emotions and coping with the disturbing and objectives, not only outcomes, as events (Munjas Samarin and Takšić, is currently the case with the University 2009). of Montenegro’s Prospectus (the

26 arguments in support of such a view are stated in item 9 of the Conclusions).

11. KC21 must make up part of the teacher training curricula. Firstly, KC21 must make up part of the contents being learned. Students must encounter the KC21 concept and understand their relevance in today’s living and working conditions and the influence of social, cultural and economic factors on education. Secondly, through their pre-service teacher training, students must have the opportunity to develop their own KC21, they must be embedded in learning subject-specific contents. Thirdly, very importantly, in the courses intended for professional development of teachers-to-be, it is essential to prepare and train students to develop KC21 in their future learners.

Education for Life: Key 21St Century Competencies in Curricula in Montenegro - Executive Summary 27

REFERENCES

Ananiadou, K., & Claro, M. (2009). 21st Century Skills and Competences for New Millennium Learners in OECD countries. OECD Education Working Papers, No. 41, OECD ublishing. doi: dx.doi.org/10.1787/218525261154. Anderson, W.L. (Ur.) (2013). Nastava orijentisana na učenje. Solun: CDRSEE. Available at http://cdrsee.org/pdf/teaching_for_learning_srb.pdf. Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., & Bloom, B. S. (2001). A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Allyn & Bacon. ATC21S–Assessment & Teaching of 21st Century Skills. (2009). Transforming Education: Assessing and Teaching 21st Century Skills [Assessment Call to Action]. Retrieve from http://atc21s.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Cisco-Intel-Microsoft- Assessment-Call-to-Action.pdf. Barrie, S.C. (2006). Understanding what we mean by the generic attributes of graduates. Higher Education 51, 215–241. Biggs, J. B., & Collis, K. F. (2014). Evaluating the Quality of Learning: The SOLO Taxonomy (Structure of the Observed Learning Outcome). Academic Press. Biggs, J. (1996). Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment. Higher Education, 32(3), 347–364. Biggs, J. (2003). Aligning teaching and assessing to course objectives. Teaching and Learning in Higher Education: New Trends and Innovations, 2, 13–17. Binkley, M., Erstad, O., Herman, J., Raizen, S., Ripley, M., Miller-Ricci, M., & Rumble, M. (2012). Defining twenty-first century skills. In Assessment and teaching of 21st century skills (pp. 17–66). Springer Netherlands. Binkley, M., Erstad, O., Herman, J.,Raizen, S., Ripley, M., & Rumble, M. (2010). Draft White. Paper 1: Defining 21st Century Skills. Assessment and Teaching of 21st Century Skills (ATCS). Retrieved fromhttp://atc21s.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/1-Defining- 21st-Century-Skills.pdf. Boud, D., Garrick, J. (1999). Understanding of workplace learning. In D. Boud and J. Garrick, Understanding Learning at Work (pp. 1–11). London: Routledge. Boyce, G., Williams, S., Kelly, A., Yee, H. (2001). Fostering deep and elaborative learning and generic (soft) skill development: the strategic use of case studies in accounting education. Accounting Education 10 (1), 37–60. Bridges, D. (2006). Transferable skills: a philosophical perspective. Studies in Higher Education 18 (1), 43–51. Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. (2006). Troubling images of teaching in No Child Left Behind. Harvard Educational Review, 76(4), 668–697. Cohen, J. (2001). Social and emotional education: Core concepts and practices. Caring classrooms/intelligent schools, 3–29.

Education for Life: Key 21St Century Competencies in Curricula in Montenegro - Executive Summary 29 Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (CASEL) (2005) Safe and sound: An educational reader’s guide to evidence-based social and emotional learning programs. Chicago, IL: CASEL. Crebert, G., Bates, M., Bell, B., Patrick, C. J., Cragnolini, V. (2004). Developing generic skills at university, during work placement and in employment: graduates’ perceptions. Higher Education Research and Development 23 (2), 147–165. Curry, P., and Sherry, R. (2004). The hidden value of higher education learning: transferable skills and their importance for graduates of modern language programmes. Dublin: Trinity College, Dublin City University, Waterford Institute of Technology. Curtis, D. D. (2004). International perspectives on generic skills. Generic skills in vocational education and training: research readings, 19–37. Curtis, D., & McKenzie, P. (2001). Employability skills for Australian industry: Literature review and framework development. Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research. Dede, C. (2010). Comparing Frameworks for 21st Century Skills. In J. Bellanca & R. Brandt Eds.), 21st Century Skills (pp. 51–75). Bloomington, in: Solution Tree Press. Delors, J. (1996). Learning: The Treasure Within. Paris: UNESCO. DeSeCo, O. E. C. D. (2005). The Definition and Selection of Key Competencies: Executive Summary. Elias, M. J. (2001). Prepare children for the tests of life, not a life of tests. Education Week, 21(4), 40. Elias, M. J. et al. (1997). Promoting social and emotional learning: Guidelines for educators. Ascd. European Commission (2013). Teacher Education and Training in the Western Balkans–Final synthesis report.ICF GHK for European Commission. European Communities (2007). The Key Competences for Lifelong Learning–A European Framework. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. Finegold, D., & Notabartolo, A. S. (2010). 21st century competencies and their impact: An interdisciplinary literature review. Retrieved from http://www.hewlett.org/ uploads/21st_Century_Competencies_Impact.pdf Fry, H., Ketteridge, S., & Marshall, S. (2008). A handbook for teaching and learning in higher education: Enhancing academic practice. Routledge. Gibb, J. (2004). Generic Skills in Vocational Education and Training: Research Readings. National Centre for Vocational Education Research (NCVER). Griffin, P., McGaw, B., & Care, E. (2012).Assessment and Teaching of 21st Century Skills. Dordrecht: Springer. Informator (Prospectus), Podgorica: the Rectory of the University of Montenegro, 2015. ISTE/International Society for Technology in Education. (2000).National educational technology standards for students: Connecting curriculum and technology. Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education.

30 ISTE/International Society for Technology in Education. (2007). National educational technology standards and performance indicators for students. Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education. Izvještaj o eksternoj evaluaciji ustanova visokog obrazovanja u Crnoj Gori (Montenegro;s Higher Education External Evaluation Report), IEP EUA ‒ Institutional Evaluation Programme, 2014. Available at http://www.gsv.gov.me/ResourceManager/ FileDownload.aspx?rid=188249&rType=2&file=25_94_18_12_2014.pdf. Joksimović, J. & Pešikan, A. (in press). Orijentacija na studente u nastavi na Univerzitetu Crne Gore. (Student-Orientation in Teaching at the University of Montenegro). Kennedy, D. (2007). Pisanje i upotreba ishoda učenja (Writing and Using Leaning Outcomes). Beograd: Council of Europe, Belgrade Office. Kress, J. S., Norris, J. A., Schoenholz, D. A., Elias, M. J., & Seigle, P. (2004). Bringing together educational standards and social and emotional learning: Making the case for educators. American journal of Education, 111(1), 68–89. Light, G., Calkins, S., & Cox, R. (2011). Learning and Teaching in Higher Education: The Reflective Professional. Sage. McLaughlin, M. (1995). Employability skills profile: What are employers looking for?. ERIC Digest. Available at: http://www.ericdigests.org/1997-2/skills.htm. Ministry of Education–Singapore (2010a). MOE to enhance learning of 21st century competencies and strengthen art, music and physical education. Press releases. Retrieved from: http://www.moe.gov.sg/media/press/2010/03/moe-to-enhance-learning- of-21s.php. Ministry of Education–Singapore (2010b). Elaboration of the MOE 21st century competencies. Retrieved from http://www.moe.gov.sg/media/press/files/2010/03/21st- century-competencies-annex-a-to-c.pdf. Munjas Samarin, R., & Takšić, V. (2009). Programi za poticanje emocionalne i socijalne kompetentnosti kod djece i adolescenata (Programmes to Foster Social and Emotional Competencies in Children and Adolescents). Suvremena psihologija, 12(2), 355–370. National Educational Technology Standards for Students (NETS•S/ISTE), 2nd edition, 2007. NCREL & Metiri Group. (2003). enGauge 21st century skills: Literacy in the digital age. Chicago, IL: NCREL. Retrieved from http://pict.sdsu.edu/engauge21st.pdf. OECD. (2005).The definition and selection of key competencies: Executive summary. Paris, France: OECD. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/pisa/35070367.pdf. Oliva, A. (2003). Key competencies in and across social fields: The employers’ perspective. In Contributions to the Second DeSeCo Symposium (p. 97). Partnership for 21st entury Skills (P21). (2009). P21 framework definitions. Retrieved from http://p21.org/storage/documents/P21_Framework_Definitions.pdf. Pellegrino, J. W., & Hilton, M. L. (Eds.). (2013). Education for life and work: Developing transferable knowledge and skills in the 21st century. National Academies Press

Education for Life: Key 21St Century Competencies in Curricula in Montenegro - Executive Summary 31 Pešikan, A. & Lalović, Z. (2015). Izvještaj o rezultatima istraživanja uloge škole u razvoju vrlina, vrijednosti i vještina učenika/ca (Report on the Research Findings on the Role of School in Developing Students’ Virtues, Values and Skills). Done within the framework of the My Values and Virtues project. Podgorica: Unicef Montenegro and the Bureau for Education. Reškovac, T. & Bešić, M. (2012). Evaluacija reforme obrazovanja u Crnoj Gori (Evaluation of Montenegro’s Education Reform). FOSI (Foundation of Open Society Institute) Network. Rychen, D. S., & Salganik,S. L. (2003). Key competencies for a successful life and a well-functioning society. Gottingen, Germany: Hogrefe & Huber. Salas, E., Bedwell, W.L., & Fiore, S.M. (2011). Developing the 21stCentury (and beyond) Workforce: A Review of Interpersonal Skills and Measurement Strategies. Paper prepared for the NRC Workshop on Assessing 21st Century Skills. Available at: http://www7.nationalacademies.org/bota/21st_Century_Workshop_alas_Fiore_Paper. pdf [Accessed May, 2016]. Salas-Pilco, S. Z. (2013). Evolution of the framework for 21st century competencies. Knowledge Management & e-Learning: An International Journal (KM&EL), 5(1), 10–24. Scardamalia, M., Bransford, J., Kozma, B., & Quellmalz, E. (2012). New assessments and environments for knowledge building. In Assessment and teaching of 21st century skills (231–300). Springer Netherlands. Spohn, C. (2008). Teacher perspectives on No Child Left Behind and arts education: A case study. Arts Education Policy Review, 109(4), 3–12. Tempus project: Razvoj ishoda učenja (Development of Learning Outcomes), DEVCORE, 2016. Available at: http://www.ucg.ac.me/fajlovi/Tempus%20projekat%20 web.pdf. Tennant, M. (1999). Is learning transferable? In: Boud, D., Garrick, J. (Eds.), Understanding Learning at Work (pp. 165–180). London: Routledge. Trilling, B., & Fadel, C. (2009). 21st century skills: learning for life in our times. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. United States Department of Labor. (2005). Occupational outlook handbook, 2006–07. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. United States. Department of Labor. SCANS (1991). What work requires of schools: a SCANS report for America 2000. Secretary’s Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills, US Department of Labor. Voogt, J., & Roblin, N.P.(2010). 21st Century Skills–Discussion paper. Enschede, The Netherlands: University of Twente. Retrieved from: http://www. internationalsymposiumoneducationalreform.com/storage/21st%20Century%20Skills. pdf. Wheeler, M., Renchler, R., Conley, K., & Summerlight, S. (2000). National Educational Technology Standards for Students: Connecting Curriculum and Technology. International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE).