The intentional use of technology in 21st century teaching and learning

Running Head: INTENTIONAL TECHNOLOGY IN 21st CENTURY LEARNING 1
The Intentional Use of Technology in 21st Century Teaching and Learning
By Benjamin C. Kahn
Western Oregon University

INTENTIONAL TECHNOLOGY IN 21st CENTURY LEARNING 2
Abstract
This essay examines the role of the educational system in knowledge dissemination in light of
increasingly pervasive information networks and connected devices. Information of all kinds is
becoming much more easily accessible; at the same time concerns that young people are
distracted by ubiquitous screens and overly immersed in digital entertainment and social media
are mounting. The nature of attention and how it relates to learning and technology usage is
discussed, including the ways in which the technology industry exacerbates young people’s
tendency to multitask or lose focus by employing manipulative design techniques. Two examples
of 1-1 iPad initiatives are examined, and different approaches to technology integration into
schools are compared and contrasted to provide insight into what types of implementation
strategies are most effective. Ultimately, this paper argues that technology integration is crucial
to prepare students to become successful, engaged, effective citizens who effectively use the
power of networks to participate in society. To support this need, curriculum should be designed
to develop student’s attentional capacity and to emphasize the deliberate and intentional use of
technology.

The proliferation of the internet, mobile devices, social media, and search engines is
changing the way we teach and learn. Technology can be positive and transformative in
education, but there is also the danger of technology implementation going awry. Many
educators worry that digital devices in the classroom are a distraction that inhibit learning, and
that widespread technology use in home and social life encroaches upon and obstructs cognitive
development. Can young people be taught to utilize connected technology with intentionality, in
ways that will better help them achieve goals, explore their identities and values in a broader
context, and flourish in a digital, quickly changing world?
For technology and the connected information explosion are changing the world, whether
schooling prepares students for it or not. Education must evolve and adapt to engage learners and
instill emerging digital literacies for the 21st century.
Knowledge Is Power
“Knowledge is power.” Often attributed to Sir Francis Bacon, the familiar quote captures
a defining aspect of the Western liberal tradition (Postman, 1992, p. Kindle location 562). If
people know better, they can be better. Thus, our cultural tradition cherishes free speech, freedom
of the press, and access to education as a means of cultivating civically engaged, prosperous
citizens. Indeed, an educated populace was seen as essential to the success of the American
experiment. Thomas Jefferson, writing in 1817, worried that his peers in the Virginia legislature
would foil his plans to establish a state university because they did “not possess information
enough to perceive the important truths, that knolege [sic] is power, that knolege is safety, and
that knolege is happiness” (Thomas Jefferson Foundation, Inc, n.d.). The problem, in Jefferson’s
view, was a lack of information.

To offer a more modern spin on the idea: “Information wants to be free.” This phrase was
coined at the inaugural Hackers Conference held in 1984 to celebrate the release Steven Levy’s
seminal book, Hackers: Heroes of the Computer Revolution. The counter-culture writer Stewart
Brand, commenting on the concept of “freeware,” made an astute observation that illuminates a
tension of the modern, data saturated world:
On the one hand information wants to be expensive, because it’s so valuable. The right
information in the right place just changes your life. On the other hand, information
wants to be free, because the cost of getting it out is getting lower and lower all the time.
So, you have these two fighting against each other (Levy, 2014).
Like Jefferson, Brand understood that knowledge acquisition is a key to unlocking potential and
capitalizing on opportunity. A century and a half after the University of Virginia opened its
doors, however, advancing technology had dramatically lowered the price of transmitting and
discovering knowledge.
Information has never been so free as it is today, either in lack of cost or unhindered
flow. Student today carry networked supercomputers in their pockets; they may attempt to learn
about almost anything imaginable at any time, with little in the way of groundwork. Free search
engines have eliminated almost all friction in the process of basic information seeking. Voice
computing interfaces are poised to further reduce barriers to information acquisition; a user may
simply “ask” almost any question and reasonably expect an answer to be conjured up nearly
instantly — surfaced out of a zettabytes-deep sea of data (Bar, 2017). Moreover, users are
bombarded with frequent push notifications; a recent study found that smartphone users receive
about 63.5 notifications per day (Pielot, Church, & de Oliveira, p. 233). These visual, audio, or
haptic alerts to new information come through messaging and social applications on mobile

devices but also from laptop or desktop browsers and from sources in non-messaging or social
media categories such as news, finance, travel, commerce, and entertainment (Shaul, 2017).
When information was more expensive, formal schooling was the among the only means
of accessing knowledge outside of immediate family and local communities available to most
people. In the 21st century, when information streams are vast and multifaceted, the classroom
educator finds their status diminished as a near-exclusive source of information and learning for
students. There are many information-transmitting entities who would like young people to
discover their message. The unenvious task of education in the digital information age is to
focus the student on relevant information from a worthwhile place and to foster the critical,
active acquisition of knowledge, rather than through passive consumption.
Deciding where and when to concentrate attention in the digital age is a challenge. There
is no single source of truth online. However, there is no single source of truth in a campus library
or amongst competing theories in an academic discipline either. In a library with hundreds of
thousands of books, mechanisms are needed to filter, locate and assess information sources.
Devices like publishers, genres, and peer-reviewed journals — systems of information that
privilege some information and filter out the irrelevant or the discredited — address the need to
sort good information from bad (Postman, 1992, p. Kindle location 1057). NYU’s Clay Shirky
sees opportunity to move forward in a similar way in the 21st century. In his rebuttal to Nicholas
Carr’s provocative question, “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” (Carr, 2008), he argues that we find
ourselves “amid new intellectual abundance” that requires “altering our historic models for the
summa bonum of educated life” (Shirky, 2008). The information explosion of the printing press
required an organizing response from the literati of the day. Likewise, scholars today are part of

a new, better, emerging knowledge tradition — digerati who can help broaden the intellectual
bounds and signposts that define 21st century learning.
Yet many, perhaps most, do not think of the emergent intersection of learning and
information technology this way. Instead parents, teachers and concerned citizens worry about
young people growing up in a world of hyperconnection. Consider the stereotype of the
prototypical Millennial student - too engrossed in texting, taking selfies, and posting to social
media, often all at once, to possibly devote adequate mental energy to rigorous study. She
immersed in information, but it is often trivial and banal; a distraction from the important work
of cultivating a well-rounded, well-informed intellectual character.
Let us imagine our hypothetical character in the real-world setting of a junior college.
Perhaps her professors are frustrated that her attention is on a laptop screen during class. Her
parents watch with concern as she studies with the television on, frequently interrupting herself
to text or check social media feeds. Why is it so important for this theoretical young person to
shut off her connected supercomputer, a portal to vast stores of information, and to instead pay
close attention to a droning PowerPoint lecture or to studying for a multiple-choice quiz? Why
instead do we not flip the question – what is so important about that PowerPoint? How can
filling in the bubbles on an exam worksheet possibly relate to or prepare her for the complexity
of modern life?
Distracted
Based on our understanding of neuroscience and learning theory, there is no question that
attention plays a key role in learning. The world is full of stimuli; far more raw information than
the human brain can consciously attend to. Different parts of our subconscious brain work
together to continually scan and classify our surroundings, forming multiple “perceptual

coherence fields” that match concrete features (“small, red, in front of me”) to abstract concepts
(“empty coffee cup, time for more coffee”) (Jackson, 2008b, p. 77). Willful, focused attention
acts as a kind of a spotlight. It pushes the broader environment into the background; shining on
the object of our attention and rendering all else soft and out of focus. It is only at this point that
visual information is passed along to the areas of the brain associated with the assiduous
processing and elaboration that leads to the creation of new mental patterns (Jackson 2008b, pg.
165). Thus, full attention is crucial to sense-making, decoding new information, and forming
coherent understanding. To multitask is to “settle for the quick fix, surface observation, black-
and-white thought” (Jackson, 2008b, p. 259), forgoing the chance for deeper contemplation or
learning. Attempting to divide attention between multiple sources makes it less likely that any
can be processed in a meaningful way. Multitasking can be used to perform menial tasks
efficiently or to attend to prosaic information, but not to genuinely learn something new.
Clearly, a texting, Snapchatting, media streaming teenager is not simultaneously giving
her full attention to a textbook. Her attention is split. This is a problem. It takes effort,
concentration, and time to learn. This can be recognized when focus is spoken of as a precious,
finite resource; one can “pay” attention and “spend” time. To extend the metaphor: focused
attention pays dividends. Students who are more engaged with their coursework not only learn
more in the short term; they also develop better critical thinking skills and intellectual capacity
long term (Jackson, 2008b, p. 233). Split attention at best degrades and at worst disrupts the
learning process. The reason that educators and parents worry is that they correctly perceive that
young people are developing poor attentional habits. They see students failing to commit the
necessary mental resources to focus, and therefore harming their chances of success in education
and later, in life.

A Race to the Bottom of the Brainstem
Teenagers and young adult students have long had the reputation, earned or not, of
neglecting their studies in favor of socializing, shallow entertainment, romance, or rebellion. But
things are noticeably different in the modern age. A high percentage of college students in the
U.S. use some type of mobile device in their learning (Pearson, 2015). One study found that
smartphone users engage with their devices up to 150 times a day (Bosker, 2016, Stern, 2013).
Research further shows that smartphone owners almost always keep their phones with them and
powered on, even when they acknowledge that smartphone use would not be appropriate in the
social situations they are in (Rainie & Zickuhr, 2015). Peer in to any college classroom (that has
not been subjected to an electronic device ban) and students can be seen clicking, scrolling,
swiping, and tapping.
If many students seem overly preoccupied with their devices, it is not an accident; it is by
design. The software running on modern devices is expertly crafted to keep users unlocking,
checking, and scrolling for as many minutes of the day as possible, in what Tristan Harris, a
former Google employee and current mindfulness crusader, has termed it a “race to the bottom of
the brainstem” (Bosker, 2016). The economic model of Silicon Valley rewards application
developers that can demonstrate page views, clicks, downloads, and daily-active users; the more
the better (Bosker, 2016; Carr, 2008). In short, they must keep users engaged, and they are
willing to exploit human physiology to do so.
The firms of Silicon Valley, given the opportunity, resources, and motive, have become
extremely proficient in grabbing our attention by employing principles of behavior design. This
school of design draws from theories of human behavior such as B.F. Skinner’s Operant
Conditioning, in which users are given variable rewards on an intermittent, rather than fixed

schedule. Randomizing the rewards schedule has been demonstrated to strongly reinforce learned
behaviors (Bosker, 2016). We are trained to check in with our technology for our next reward.
Popular social apps also capitalize on the human instinct for social reciprocity. Facebook
tells social contacts when a friend has read their messages, pressuring them to respond
immediately. App developers even study which colors are more likely to trigger specific
emotional reactions and lead to more clicks (Bosker, 2016). Few chances to persuade us to spend
just a few more minutes or to check just a bit more often are missed.
Those who accuse multitasking students of attention deficiency fail to recognize the
power of software designers who have the expertise, data, and full intent to manipulate human
behavior. Young people who are distracted from rigorous study by devices and social media are
simply reacting to stimuli in exactly the ways the most effective and highly compensated
behavioral design experts expect them too.
No Tech in Schools?
Is the answer to abolish screens from our classrooms? Some educators think so. Third
grade teacher Launa Hall (2015) writes of the “many moments when [she] wished [she] could
send the iPads back” after her school district implemented a 1-1 program. While acknowledging
that the tablets created new learning opportunities for creative expression and connection to
peers in and outside of the classroom, they also created distraction and suffered from time-
wasting technical glitches during the early rollout. More importantly, she believes they stunted
her young students’ long-term development. Juvenile children need to engage in talk, both
socially with peers and with adults who can model communication and social skills. In Hall’s
eyes “the iPads subtly undermined that important work. My lively little kids stopped talking and
adopted the bent-neck, plugged-in posture of tap, tap, swipe” (Hall, 2015). In spite of the new

methods of learning tablets allowed her students to engage in, she ultimately believes the costs
exacted on attention outweighed the gains made in learning modality (Hall, 2015).
Hall offers valid criticisms of the ways in which technology was introduced to her
classroom. She notes that teacher pushback against the initiative seemed pointless because the
“money was spent (more than $100,000 for each grade), and the iPads were happening" (Hall,
2015). Once the decision was made, expectations to make the program a success were placed on
the teachers’ shoulders. It is implied that teachers faced considerable pressure to justify the
institution’s investment by making frequent use of the iPads regardless of their applicability in
specific learning scenarios. Without top-down strategic leadership to apply the tools in a
purposeful manner, understand the impact on the social dynamics of a classroom full of young
learners, or ensure adequate technical support and training were provided, the types of pitfalls
Hall writes about are likely to befall any technology initiative.
In contrast to Hall’s experience, Lori Varlotta, President of Hiram College, writes about
the “Tech and Trek” 1-1 iPad program planned for Fall of 2017 at the small Ohio liberal arts
college. The initiative “galvanized around the idea of ‘mindful technology’—teaching students
how to creatively and critically use technology to augment classroom learning, navigate the
literal and figurative treks that constitute their college experience, and prepare for the 21st-
century workplace.” (Varlotta, 2017) She offers a mnemonic device — “The Four P’s” — to
provide a framework for understanding the school’s approach to technology implementation.
Briefly summarized, Varlotta’s Four P’s are as follows:
 Purposeful: a clear purpose is offered, in this case to enhance active learning in
the classroom. By fostering constructivist pedagogy, Hiram hopes to develop the

same type of critical engagement with learning in students that critics of
classroom technology often claim that screens in classrooms debilitate.
 Pragmatic: the effective use of technology will allow students to make practical
improvements in the everyday circumstances of their learning.
 Proportionate: the when, where, and to-what extent questions of technology use
are consciously explored. The unthinking or constant use of technology is
explicitly discouraged.
 Present: an hour a week will be designated as a technology free time. Activities
that build authentic community and relationships or explore the physical and
social world of the campus and surrounding area are offered.
While it is too early to know if Hiram’s 1-1 iPad initiative will be more successful than
the one Hall writes about, the thoughtfully considered approach from a senior administrator
allows room for optimism. Foremost, the Hiram iPad program is purpose-driven in a way the
latter was apparently not: the institution was committed to supporting constructivist pedagogy in
real and concrete ways. iPads were one way further that goal by augmenting students’ abilities in
ways that helped them personalize and deepen their own engagement with the learning material.
Further, the rejection of perfunctory technology use and regulation of time spent with devices
shows a clear wariness of the pitfalls of adopting technology for technology’s sake. The biggest
difference, of course, is the age of the learners. Hall intimates that her use of iPads was carefully
considered at the classroom level: the learning purposes of the tablets were discussed, they were
selectively employed with activities that would most benefit from their use, and they were put
away when not in use. However, elementary school children simply may not be old enough to
escape harm that the heavy use of devices in a 1-1 program entails, both from direct effect of

interacting with a screen and from the time taken away from face to face interactions with peers
and instructors (Hall, 2015). Hall’s students may well have benefitted more from a classroom in
which more time was spent on the cognitive, social, and emotional development that undergirds
the successful use of technology later in life.
What’s the Point?
Considering the Jeffersonian purpose of the educational system – to help children grow
into citizens armed with the knowledge that is the key to security and happiness - it seems clear
that the complete removal of technology from classrooms at all levels is not a satisfactory
remedy to the problems of technology fueled distraction. If a goal of education is to prepare
young people for employment in the 21st century, some rethinking of the curriculum is needed to
prepare students for the modern knowledge economy. Graduates will need to navigate a remote,
mobile, distributed, digitally mediated workspace (Moore, 2016). Not only will technical skill
with digital technologies be required for success in this environment, so too will a high degree of
self-regulation while working unsupervised online. Students will be required to interact with
technologies at some point in their academic careers to develop competency and productive
habits in these areas.
Moreover, if a greater goal of education remains to create responsible, engaged,
productive citizens, new literacies will need to be identified and taught to foster lifelong learning
and success in a hyper-networked world. New media is participatory; it allows individuals to
multiply their impact by sharing and collaborating in ways that were never possible before.
Knowledge is “inherently social. But…also inherently distributed, and more and more so”, notes
James Paul Gee (2003, p. 183) in his work studying the learning methodologies embedded in
video game design. In other words, Gee envisions each person as one node in a series of

information systems. He calls out the various methods and technologies used to offload
information, from writing notes and using calendars, to consulting knowledgable people, and
now to computers and the internet. Individuals gain new capacities when networked together:
“important knowledge is in the network— that is, in the people, their texts, tools, and
technologies and, crucially, the ways in which they are interconnected — not in any one ‘node’”
(Gee, 2003, p. 184). Thus, social and distributed knowledge cannot be understood in the
individualistic way that is common in schools today.
To assess an offline node is to underestimate its potential. A node must be viewed in the
context of its contributions to a network of knowledge (Gee, 2003, p. 188). Collaborative
contributions to social, networked systems like blogs, social media sites, search engines, wikis,
and open source communities can and do translate to significant economic, political, and social
capital (Rheingold, 2012, p. 111). These are skills that students need develop if they hope to
impact the world for the better. In the 21st century, networked knowledge is power.
Remedies
Tristan Harris advocates that software developers adopt and adhere to a new ethical code.
In much the way that medical doctors follow the Hippocratic oath, he argues that designers
should refrain from exploiting human’s most vulnerable psychological triggers. In Harris’ view
software should be designed to empower users to willfully allocate attention, instead of
surreptitiously lapping it up (Bosker, 2016). The education technology market was estimated to
be worth about 8 billion dollars in 2015 and growing annually (Chen, 2015). It is not entirely
implausible to imagine that movement along the lines suggested by Harris could be spurred by
evolving purchasing preferences and priorities amongst schools. A mobile device user who
grows up with apps that prompt her to enter a distraction free mode when she opens an e-book

might have a different relationship to technology than one who grows up with apps that
persistently pester her to enable push notifications.
At the same time, individuals must be better prepared to effectively and intentionally
deploy their own attention, regardless of the design choices made in Silicon Valley. Accessing
and participating in networked knowledge is cognitively strenuous. The sheer scale of the
information and nonstop deluge of media can easily overwhelm and distract individuals. In his
book Net Smart, Rheingold (2012) identifies attention as the “fundamental literacy” (p. 12)
necessary to successfully practice 21st century-skills like collaboration, participation and
information vetting. With so much competition for attention, a more mindful, intentional, and
reflective approach is required to avoid burnout and overloading, never mind sorting the good
and worthwhile from the worthless or misleading.
Willfully controlling one’s attention is a 21st century skill that needs to be taught.
Rheingold states the case eloquently, arguing that “technology is altering the way people pay
attention…we need to explore and understand how to train attention now, so that we, not our
devices, control the shape of this alteration in the future” (Rheingold, 2012, p. 15). In other
words, we need to make a conscious effort to enhance our capacity to regulate focus. Attention is
becoming increasingly well understood by cognitive scientists, and research suggests that it can
be improved through deliberate training (Jackson, 2008a). As the relationship between attention,
conscious and unconscious thought, the nervous system, and the body are investigated,
researchers are finding preliminary success in methods like computer-based training,
metacognitive awareness of attention, and meditation or breathing exercises to develop and
strengthen capacity for attention. Research into the long-term success of attention training is
ongoing. It is in the public interest that those forms of attention training (technology augmented

or not) that are found to be most effective are embedded into future educational programs from
an early age.
Engagement
Think back to our hypothetical young person, and consider whether or not the way
technology has been used in her schooling has adequately prepared her to succeed. She is blamed
for using technology in the exact ways that the best, most successful software designers in the
world intend. Teachers and parents ask her to eschew dynamic, socially connected, vast
information networks and instead pay attention to textbooks, PowerPoint lectures, or studying for
standardized tests. These activities are not developing the new literacies that she will need to
navigate her life and career. She is not learning how to effectively participate, to collaborate, or
to critically interrogate information streams. Nor is she learning how to willfully direct her
attention; instead she is simply learning that she is not very good at focusing on what academic
institutions typically have to offer her. The ways we communicate and consume information
have changed - our ideas of when and how to best use our attention need to be re-litigated
accordingly. Schools must begin to teach students how to become cognizant of their attentional
habits, how to train and develop focus, and how to engage with massively interconnected
information networks in a purposeful and intentional way, and they must begin exerting pressure
on technology providers to design their wares to help, rather than hinder, this process.

References
Bar, N. (2017, January 07). Now We're Talking: How voice technology is transforming
computing. Retrieved from The Ecnomist:
http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21713836-casting-magic-spell-it-lets-people-
control-world-through-words-alone-how-voice
Bosker, B. (2016, November). The Binge Breaker. Retrieved from The Atlantic:
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/11/the-binge-breaker/501122/
Carr, N. (2008, July/August). Is Google Making Us Stupid? Retrieved from The Atlantic:
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/07/is-google-making-us-
stupid/306868/
Chen, A. (2015, November 6). The Ever-Growing Ed-Tech Market. Retrieved from The Atlantic:
https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2015/11/quantifying-classroom-tech-
market/414244/
Gee, J. P. (2003). What Video Games Have to Teach Us About Learning and Literacy (2nd
Edition, Kindle ed.). New York, NY: St. Martin's Press.
Hall, L. (2015, December 2). Opinions I gave my students iPads — then wished I could take
them back. Retrieved from The Washington Post, Opinions Page:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/i-gave-my-students-ipads--then-wished-i-
could-take-them-back/2015/12/02/a1bc8272-818f-11e5-a7ca-
6ab6ec20f839_story.html?utm_term=.1795cbe3de94
Jackson, M. (2008a, June 29). Attention class. Retrieved from Boston.com:
http://archive.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2008/06/29/attention_class/

Jackson, M. (2008b). Distracted: The Erosion of Attention and the Coming Dark Age. Amherst,
NY: Prometheus Books.
Levy, S. (2014, November 21). The Definitive Story of "Information Wants to Be Free".
Retrieved from Backchannel: https://backchannel.com/the-definitive-story-of-
information-wants-to-be-free-a8d95427641c
Moore, C. (2016). The Future of Work: What Google Shows Us About the Need For Online
Collaboration. TechTrends, 60(3), 233-44.
Pearson. (2015). Student Mobile Device Survey 2015. Pearson.
Pielot, M., Church, K., & de Oliveira, R. (n.d.). An In-Situ Study of Mobile Phone Notifications.
MobileHCI '14 Proceedings of the 16th international conference on Human-computer
interaction with mobile devices & services (pp. 233-42). Toronto: ACM.
Postman, N. (1992). Technopoly: The surrender of culture to technology (Kindle ed.). New
York: Knopf.
Rainie, L., & Zickuhr, K. (2015, August 26). Report: Americans Views on Mobile Etiquette.
Retrieved from Pew Research Center: http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/08/26/chapter-1-
always-on-connectivity/
Rheingold, H. (2012). Net Smart: How to Thrive Online (Kindle ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
Schaffhauser, D. (2016, January 19). Report: Education Tech Spending on the Rise. Retrieved
from THE Journal: https://thejournal.com/articles/2016/01/19/report-education-tech-
spending-on-the-rise.aspx

Shaul, B. (2017, June 27). iOS Push Notifications Have a 41% Opt-In Rate (Infographic).
Retrieved from Adweek: http://www.adweek.com/digital/ios-push-notifications-have-a-
41-opt-in-rate-infographic/
Shirky, C. (2008, July 17). Why Abundance is Good: A Reply to Nick Carr. Retrieved from
Encyclopedia Britannica Blog: http://blogs.britannica.com/2008/07/why-abundance-is-
good-a-reply-to-nick-carr/
Stern, J. (2013, May 29). Cellphone Users Check Phones 150x/Day and Other Internet Fun
Facts. Retrieved from ABC News:
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/technology/2013/05/cellphone-users-check-phones-
150xday-and-other-internet-fun-facts/
Thomas Jefferson Foundation, Inc. (n.d.). Knowledge is Power (Quotation). Retrieved from
Monitcello.org: https://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/knowledge-power-quotation
Varlotta, L. (2017, May 8). Mobile Technology Meets Mindful Technology. Retrieved from
Educause Review: http://er.educause.edu/articles/2017/5/mobile-technology-meets-
mindful-
technology?utm_source=Informz&utm_medium=Email+marketing&utm_campaign=ER

The intentional use of technology in 21st century teaching and learning

Recomendados

Recomendados

Mais conteúdo relacionado

Mais procurados

Mais procurados (19)

Semelhante a The intentional use of technology in 21st century teaching and learning

Semelhante a The intentional use of technology in 21st century teaching and learning (20)

Último

Último (20)

The intentional use of technology in 21st century teaching and learning