- primarytechreview
- Jul 11
- 11 min read
Updated: 2 hours ago
The great reset
For over a decade, Nordic countries invested heavily in digital technology for schools.
In Sweden, data from the Swedish National Agency for Education, (Skolverket) shows the scale of this rollout. In 2016, in preschools, there were 8.2 children per computer or tablet, compared to 12.5 four years earlier. In primary schools, in 2016, there were 1.8 children per device, compared to 3.0 in 2012. In secondary schools by 2016, children had approximately 1:1 access, with 1.0 children per device compared to 1.3 in 2012. (source)
In Norway, the Monitor Skole Report (source) stated that in 2016, school leaders reported an average of 3.6 students per device across all mandatory school years. By 2019, Monitor Skole reported that 80% to 90% of lower secondary children had their own dedicated device. Primary children were still frequently sharing, averaging 2-3 children per device.
In Denmark, students ranked highest on an OECD report which asked how frequently students used digital resources to write or edit text or a school assignment. (source). 80% of students in Denmark reported using digital resources at least once a week to wrote or edit text for a school assignment and 75% of students in Denmark reported using digital devices at least once a week to find information about a real-world phenomenon or dilemma.
Yet coinciding with these developments, all three countries experienced declines in PISA score testing mathematics, reading and science.
The graphs below below show results in mathematics, reading and science, comparing Norway, Sweden and Denmark to Korea - a country that usually performs well in PISA testing, and the UK.
OECD PISA Database, 2022 - Average proficiency in mathematics, reading and science from 2006 to 2022
(source)
It is clear from looking that these graphs that Norway, Sweden and Denmark experienced a decline in PISA scores from 2010 onwards. This was most dramatic for Norway, particularly in terms of mathematics. Sweden's decline appeared to be halted in 2018, before continuing again in all three areas. Denmark experienced a sudden decline from 2018 onwards.
Korea also experienced a drop in mathematics scores, although this seems to have been arrested from 2015 onwards. Reading and science scores dropped, but remained comparatively high. The UK saw a gradual decline, with a steeper drop in 2020 across all three areas, but scores remained comparatively high.
Understandably, Norway, Sweden and Denmark were concerned by the PISA results over this period. Many commentators made the link between increased use of digital devices in school and lower PISA scores. Since the publication of these results, Norway, Sweden and Denmark have all initiated a change in school digital strategy, investing in textbooks and moving to remove access to digital devices among children. But if this is in response to concerns, including declining PISA scores, is this the right approach, and is it justified on the evidence available?
Examining data on technology use
The OECD publication, 'Education in Sweden, A Diagnostic Review with Analysis of PISA 2022 Results' (link) offers thorough and helpful insights about the implications of the 2022 PISA results in relation to use of technology in Swedish schools.
This study recognised the surge in investment in digital resources over the last ten years, accelerated by the COVID pandemic. The study recognised a key consideration, that despite the scale of the expansion of use of digital technology in schools, limited data is available, stating,
"Despite a growing body of rigorous research on the use of digital technologies in schools, generalisable evidence concerning their impact on students' educational development is limited, given the highly context-dependent and diverse use of digital resources in schools."
This observation is important and is explained throughout the publication. It recognises that use of digital technology varies between schools, districts, regions and countries. Even in a school with a developed digital strategy, different teachers will use the same technology to different effect. Terms like 'artificial intelligence', 'screentime' and 'digital devices' mean different things depending on who you speak to. Children playing an educational game and children using a laptop to program a soil moisture sensor are both engaged in screentime, but with different results developing different aspects of cognition.
By evaluating schools purely on how many screens are in the building, rather than how those screens are used, policymakers run the risk of misdiagnosing the problem. The rest of the report helps understand whether this is the case in Sweden.
The OECD report referenced a report by Forsstrom et al. 2025, (link), which as reported by the OECD, found that,
"Effective digital integration is characterised by structured tasks aligned with curriculum standards, the thoughtful integration of tools linked to learning goals, robust teacher support for students and their learning process, a balanced use of digital and analogue methods, personalised learning opportunities, collaboration and classroom management that builds on relational aspects such as trust, mutual respect and positive teacher-student relationships."
This observation details so many of the things that are important to effective use of technology in schools. Above all, it places learning and the curriculum at the forefront, before the tasks or tools that are selected to accomplish these. Schools that use digital technology effectively develop a curriculum that carefully considers children's developmental needs, required knowledge and understanding and need to express themselves through meaningful work.
The reference to the learning process points to the value of metacognition (how students understand their own thinking). It encourages us to examine the role that technology plays in advancing or in some cases, hindering, effort, thinking and cognitive development.
References to personalised learning highlights an areas where technology demonstrates promise, in being able to offer resources tailored to the needs of children at different stages of their learning. This can be in the form of tailored, digital resources being made available, including videos, scaffolds for work and extension materials, perfectly mapped to children at different stages of development.
The OECD report cautions when interpreting the PISA data, stating,
"While PISA data provides rich insights into use of digital technology in Swedish schools, it also has methodological limitations that policy makers need to be aware of when interpreting the data presented in this report. Most importantly..., the associations presented throughout the chapter reflect statistical correlations and should not be interpreted as causal."
PISA data undoubtably shows a decline in areas of areas of academic achievement in Norway, Sweden and Denmark. This correlates to a period when digital devices were introduced into school in this region.
However, correlation is not causation. Two questions arise:
1) Did the introduction of digital technology cause the overall decline?
2) Was the decline because of technology itself, or because of the way that it was introduced and managed?
As the OECD report alluded to earlier, answering the second question is incredibly difficult. The diversity how the same technology can be used by different teachers and institutions makes drawing overall conclusions a complex task.
The rest of the OECD article contains valuable data and conclusions, including about device availability and frequency of device use at school.
The report concluded that,
"The availability of digital devices in Swedish schools is associated with slightly higher levels of mathematics performance once students' and schools' socio-economic profile is accounted for...Having access to a wider range of digital resources at home is associated with higher levels of performance for advantaged, but not disadvantaged students."
This conclusion again, points to the complexity of the question of digital device use. Availability of devices is just one factor, socio-economic profile, availability of devices at home and pupil's level of advantage also contribute to achievement. As discussed earlier, even availability of devices in a school can mean different things, depending on the ways that the devices are used.
One of the most interesting observations of this report was the "curvilinear relationship" described between device use and attainment. The report stated,
"In most OECD countries, the time that students reported spending using digital resources for learning at school has a curvilinear relationship with their performance. That is, while students who spend a moderate number of hours per day using digital resources for learning activities at school school higher in mathematics than students who spend no time on such devices."
The report also compared this to Finland, stating,
"Student in Finland show an even stronger drop in performance associated with intensive use of digital resources in mathematics lessons that Swedish students."
Of particular significance in the report are the findings on devices and distraction within lessons. The report stated,
"Students who use digital devices can easily be tempted to multitask, shift their attention to other information or software available on the devices, or use their internet browsers for non-academic activities when using these devices."
Distraction is arguably, not an issue that is raised often in discussion about the merits of using digital technology in the classroom. Much of the current discussion, rightly, focuses the impact of cognitive development when using technology and the effectiveness of digital tools for learning, compared to analogue tools. But the classroom reality is that digital technology can be distracting, even in terms of waiting for software to load, devices to be handed out or logins to be checked. Again, drawing overall conclusions about these factors is hard due to the differences in how schools account for, and prepare for these issues.
Addressing wider developmental concerns
As well as addressing concerns highlighted by academic performance, Nordic countries are acting to address perceptions of use of technology interrupting wider aspects of children's development.
In 2025, the Norwegian Government published the white paper, 'Safe upbringing in a digital society,' (link).
This report laid out the government's objectives for keeping children safe in a digital society. It included considerations around screentime, privacy, online content, bullying and pitfalls relating to use of artificial intelligence by children.
The main concern raised about children's use of artificial intelligence was not, in fact, loss of cognitive development through answers being provided by AI tools. Instead, the report was concerned by children forming 'parasocial' relationships as children potentially bonded with AI tools. Th report stated that children were at risk of manipulation by AI tools and that children had developed relationships with AI tools which were incapable of empathy or understanding.
This concern points to a risk more serious than even cognitive decline, suggesting that children's safety and wellbeing are at risk if they are given access to tools without sufficient understanding and capability to critique.
On 19th June 2026, the Norwegian government published a press release, stating concerns that use of generative AI by primary children was affective their cognitive abilities. (link)
The press release stated,
"Several rounds of international surveys such as PISA and PIRLS show large drops in Norwegian students' basic skills, such as reading, writing and arithmetic. Uncritical use of generative AI can lead to students skipping important stages of learning."
The release went on to state,
"Our children must learn to find their own answers, not have them ready made by AI. They do not have the academic foundation, the critical reflection and self-regulation needed to use AI in a good way. They must learn to read for themselves, write for themselves, do math for themselves and think for themselves."
Coupled with this, the Norwegian government is also legislating to provide access to physical books. The press release stated,
"We are now sending a clear signal to municipalities that they must prioritise physical books to a greater extent."
The Norwegian approach aims to address all aspects of children's development, recognising that development takes place in stages and that academic skills, thinking skills, critical skills and regulatory skills come before the development of skills relating to use of technology.
What is the Nordic approach not doing?
The Nordic approach does not equate to removing technology from schools.
It also does not equate to a ban of AI in schools. The Norwegian press release stated that children in grades 1-7 will not be generally be given access to AI. In grades 8 - 10, AI can be used cautiously and gradually, depending on teacher competence. In upper secondary education, students will use AI appropriately to prepare them for further education and work.
In fact, the aforementioned white paper, 'Safe upbringing in a digital society,' stated,
"Artificial intelligence (AI) will play a significant role in pupils' future. Schools must prepare them for this...Schools must equip pupils for a future involving AI, enabling them to act with ethical awareness and critically reflect on the consequences of technology for individuals and society."
In Sweden, physical reading materials are replacing screens as the primary learning tools. Technology is, however, still being used in schools to teach children digital skills. Children learn research and media literacy, being taught how to safely search for information and navigate digital environments safely. Children are also introduced to computational thinking and learn programming logic.
The Swedish National Agency for Education (Skolverket) is emphasising that foundational literacy (reading physical books by hand) is crucial for memory retention and deep focus. This corresponds to research about retention via printed materials and the increased cognitive load experienced when reading on a screen.
Denmark is also not executing a 'blanket ban' of technology, but instead shifting its focus from classroom digitlaisation, to tactile, immediate, text-based analogue instruction. Denmark's Ministry of Children and Education (Borne-og Undervisingsministeriet) has issued a 12- point national recommendation for screen use (link), which states that schools must block access to non-educational "entertainment" on school networks and protect "analogue learning" and teacher - led digital tools. Crucially, the strategy states,
"The agency also recommends that schools be aware of when it makes academic sense to use digital learning materials, and that they make room for analogue learning. A new report commissioned by the Danish Health Authority points out that it affects children and young people's ability to concentrate and disrupts their academic performance when they use access to private screen use during teaching."
The measures being put in place in Norway, Sweden and Denmark, while similar, should be treated in isolation and examined upon their own strategy and rationale. What all three have in common is a recognition of the value of analogue methods and the need to develop all aspects of children's development, including digital skills.
Conclusion - what does this mean for the future of devices in schools?
The Nordic decision to limit use of technology can be viewed as a regressive step. It can seem counterintuitive to limit children's access to devices and their ability to use digital tools at a time when learning digital skills is so important. Commentators have been particularly concerned about the mistaking of correlation of decline, as measured by PISA tests, with causation.
However, the Nordic strategy is less an absolute rejection of digital tool and more a conscious, strategic re-embrace of analogue learning. Norway, Sweden and Denmark have all made a conscious decision to re-embrace physical methods of learning in circumstances where these are the best tools for children's reading, cognitive development and concentration.
The data from the OECD PISA analysis suggests a curvilinear relationship between use of technology and success in mathematics. However, as discussed, terms like 'technology', 'artificial intelligence' and 'screentime' mean so many different things in practice, that it is difficult to use these terms to draw conclusions. Instead, far more precise discussion is needed relating to the exact uses of technology in schools.
What other countries can learn from the Nordic approach is the value of choosing tools based on prior-established educational and developmental outcomes. Nordic countries have evaluated certain developmental priorities and decided that the tech tools they have are not right for all of them. At the same time, digital literacy and computational thinking are still being taught using digital tools. Whether other countries decide to come to the same, or different conclusions will depend on the priorities they set, the tools they choose, and most importantly, the way that teachers are trained to use them.
Hong Kong and Mainland China both systems provide children with access to AI tools, aiming to develop AI literacy and understanding of this powerful technology.
But closer examination of the policy and situation in Hong Kong and China reveal important differences in approach.
In this article, we explore the approaches that Hong Kong and Mainland China are taking towards children's use of AI in primary education. We look at the practical implications of these approaches for schools and attempt to understand the rationale behind each approach.
The strategy of Hong Kong: urgency and well-laid foundations
Hong Kong's vision and strategy for developing use of technology is laid out in the Blueprint for Digital Education Development in Primary and Secondary Schools. (link)
The opening sentence of the Blueprint for Digital Education states,
"In the face of the global digital transformation trend, we must proactively answer the call of the times: "What should education do about AI?""
It states,
"In alignment with our country's support for Hong Kong's positioning as an international innovation and technology (I&T) centre, primary and secondary education in Hong Kong must actively embrace the digital era and make early preparation."
The blueprint further states,
"Therefore, emphasising forward-looking planning, continuous optimisation and keeping pace with the times, the Education Bureau (EDB) drives all schools to comprehensively implement artificial intelligence (AI) education for students...holistically cultivating students' digital literacy, innovative thinking and capability to adapt to the future society."
These three quotes are important. They recognise that understanding of AI is a goal in itself and that education has a part to play in this. They also recognise that the future of Hong Kong and its continued development as a leader in innovation and technology depend upon both primary and secondary education preparing children through education about digital technologies. The final quote is interesting because the terms 'holistically' and 'innovative thinking'. These point to development of children's well being in the digital world, and development of their thinking skills, which has been a key consideration among all countries considering how use of AI affects children's cognition.
The objectives of the Blueprint for Digital Education are specified on page 9. These are:
1) To enhance students digital literacy, computational thinking, creativity and a sense of ethical responsibility
2) Strengthening teacher professionalism, enhancing teachers' pedagogical capabilities and drive a paradigm shift toward "student-centred learning"
3) Optimising infrastructure and resource support
4) Foster cross-sector collaboration, co-creating a digital education system
Indicators on pages 10 and 11 detail the expected implementation outcomes:
School level - All primary and secondary schools in Hong Kong will incorporate development strategies for digital education and AI into their school development plans and establish school timetables to drive a student-centred paradigm shift in teaching, learning and assessment.
System level - A comprehensive digital learning resource platform will be established through collaboration between various partners. This will be tailored to the local curriculum for primary and secondary schools and bring in high-quality educational resources from around the world.
Teacher level - All primary and secondary teachers in Hong Kong will complete foundational training on AI literacy and AI+subjects, with school leaders completing training on AI leadership.
Student level - Student learning experiences will be enriched, cultivating critical thinking, creativity and problem-solving skills, promoting self-directed learning and strengthening AI literacy.
The Blueprint for Digital Education, on page 15, highlights the importance of nurturing people, with technology being an auxiliary tool. It describes the "principle of the human mind as the mainstay, with the computer in a supporting role."
The Blueprint for Digital Education sets out four development focuses and ten implementation strategies for promoting the digital transformation of education. These are listed in page 19 and referred to throughout the rest of the blueprint.
The four focuses and ten implementation strategies are:
Key focus | Implementation strategy |
(I) Nurturing talents with both digital literacy and humanistic qualities | 1) Formulating an AI Literacy Learning Framework 2) Strengthening Maths, Science and Technology education to enhance students' I&T capabilities 3) Integrating digital education into the primary curriculum, promoting an AI+curriculum and implementing human-AI collaborative learning |
(II) Strengthening teacher training to drive digital transformation of education | 4) Formulating teacher professional training requirements 5) Providing tiered, diversified professional development, focusing on schools' capacity to lead change and pedagogical innovation |
(III) Optimising infrastructure to build smart campuses | 6) Promote the development of smart campuses and explore how AI can assist schools in handling administrative work, reduce workload and enhance capacity, school governance and efficacy 7) Leverage the enhanced School Development and Accountability (SDA) framework to drive school improvement 8) Strengthen support services, provide resources and build a platform for digital education learning resources |
(IV) Promoting cross-sector collaboration to co-create a digital education ecosystem | 9) Promote home-school cooperation 10) Bring together various stakeholders, including professional bodies, to build a digital education ecosystem |
Hong Kong's strategy for AI in primary education emphasises both urgency and well-laid foundations. Teacher training is mandated, both at teacher level and at leadership level. A separate document, Circular 221/2025 (link) details funding available to schools, further explains the rationale for incorporating digital technology and AI onto schools and explains how schools can send representatives for training. The strategy provides clear indicators of success, meaning that schools can quickly and accurately assess their progress according to the strategy and seek guidance and training for indicators as needed.
What this looks like in classrooms in Hong Kong
To find out more about how schools implement this strategy in practice, we can look at the guidance in Circular 221/2025, 'AI for Empowering Learning and Teaching Funding Programme Supporting primary and secondary school to utilise AI to enhance learning and teaching effectiveness'. (link)
This document states,
"Publicly funded primary and secondary schools are eligible to apply for the said funding programme. Successful school applicants will receive a one-off funding of $500,000. Schools can utilise the funding to initiate or promote school-based programs that use AI to empower education, tailored to their own specific circumstances and developmental needs..."
The circular states that schools participating in the funding programme must commit to fulfil the following requirements within the implementation period of the programme:
Incorporate the item, ""Development if AI-powered education into the school development plan and/or annual school plan
Implement AI-assisted teaching in at least three subjects/curriculum areas and develop at least six teaching examples or sets of learning and teaching resources with the application of AI
Conduct at least three open classes or classroom demonstrations on AI-assisted teaching in at least three different subject/curriculum areas
Organise at least three experience-sharing sessions on AI-assisted teaching
Host or arrange for students to participate in at least two student activities focusing on enhancing students' AI literacy skills
These requirements are frequently referred to as "3 x 2 x 6" by local educational technology consultants and school administrators in Hong Kong, as they require schools to implement AI assisted teaching in at least 3 subjects, ensure each chosen subject covers at least 2 grade levels and develop at least 6 concrete AI teaching examples/modules across those subjects.
The result of this funding requirement, as well as Hong Kong's overall digital and AI strategy is that use of AI has completely emerged from Computing as a subject and is becoming integrated in subjects across the curriculum.
Schools participating in the funding program are opening their doors to each other and to the wider community, showcasing and sharing how they use AI with students across the curriculum. Furthermore, because the blueprint demands the "human mind as the mainstay", primary classrooms are anchored in collaborative work and problem solving. Use of AI by children is experimental, with children being provided with creative tools to experiment and create with.
Mainland China: gradual exposure and computational logic
The result of Hong Kong's approach to AI in primary education is that students use AI tools creatively and experimentally in subjects across the curriculum, including at primary-level.
Mainland China takes a more gradual approach to introducing students to creative use of AI. The Ministry of Education released guidance on enhancing AI literacy in primary and secondary schools (link), stating,
"The focus should be on raising awareness about AI in the lower primary school grades; on understanding and using AI technology in the higher primary school grades and in lower middle school, and on project creation and application of advanced technologies at the upper middle school level."
In this guidance, the Ministry of Education specifically mentions thinking skills, stating, "It (the guidance) emphasises the enhancement of thinking skills and problem solving skills while raising students' digital literacy."
Interestingly, this guidance urges links between schools, universities research institutes and high-tech companies. The Ministry of Education urges teacher training and the recruitment of professionals from across these sectors. It also encourages AI laboratories and research institutes to make themselves accessible to primary and middle school students and to develop educational services for students from these schools.
Through the National Smart Education Platform for Primary and Secondary Education, the Ministry of Education aims to facilitate the sharing of high-quality AI resources. The National Smart Education Platform will launch a specific section on AI literacy, aiming to fulfil this goal.
The Australian Government Department of Education (link) reports China's AI Education goals for primary level as being:
Cognition | Spark interest through hands-on experiences with smart devices and basic AI concepts like speech and image recognition |
Skills | Develop basic AI skills by using simple tools, visual programming and practising data handling |
Thinking | Build foundational thinking by practising logical reasoning, task breakdown, and comparing AI with human behaviour |
Values | Deepen ethical understanding by recognising AI's strategic role in innovation and evaluating misinformation risks in generative technologies |
Again, based on these goals, the approach of Mainland China at primary level seems to be more on computational thinking and understanding how AI works, rather than the creative use across the curriculum encouraged by Hong Kong.
Ultimately, these goals help to demonstrate the regional divide between how Hong Kong and Mainland China are approaching AI in primary education. The approach of Hong Kong treats AI as a flexible, creative tool with the potential to enhance thinking and outputs across the curriculum. Mainland China focuses on computational thinking, requiring children to understand how AI works prior to giving them access to freer access to AI creative tools.
Economics and social factors driving educational policy
To understand why Hong Kong and Mainland China are training their children differently, it is helpful to be aware of the wider social and economic factors in each region.
Hong Kong: a knowledge-driven economy
Hong Kong operates a highly compact, specialised network of 591 elementary schools (420 aided schools, 116 private schools, 33 government schools and 21 direct subsidy scheme schools) (source). Government schools, aided schools and direct subsidy scheme schools follow the Blueprint for Digital Education Development, which outlines integration of AI in local education. International schools have greater freedom in terms of curriculum design and policy.
Hong Kong has virtually no physical natural resources. Instead, it relies on, what the Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office calls, the Four Pillar Industries: Financial Services, Tourism and Hospitality, Transport, Infrastructure and Advanced manufacturing and Business and Professional Services, as well as the New Growth Industries: Creative Industries, FinTech, Multicultural Talent Pool, Innovation and Technology, Testing and Certification Services and Creative Industries. (source) As the Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office states,
"New growth industries ... are identified by the Hong Kong government as the industries where Hong Kong enjoys advantages for further development."
Because Hong Kong's wealth is entirely knowledge-based, its human capital is its main natural resource. Hong Kong needs a workforce of highly agile, creative and innovative thinkers and its primary education system is aimed at laying the groundwork for this, including with its approach of use of AI by students.
Mainland China: a high-tech, industrial superpower
The Ministry of Education in China stated that in 2024, there were 143,500 regular primary schools. (source) China is rich in natural resources, including mineral resources, coal, petroleum, natural gas and rare earths. The Chinese Academy of Sciences states that "The national reserves of rare earth metals far exceed the combined total for the rest of the world." (source)
China enjoys vast tourism resources, with the World Travel and Tourism Council explaining, "China's Travel and Tourism (T&T) sector is undergoing a phase of accelerated expansion...placing the country firmly back on track to become the world's leading T&T economy in the coming years if current trends continue." (source)
In addition, China's manufacturing industry is, as China Briefing describes, "a cornerstone of China's economy", which "accounted for around 25 per cent of China's GDP." (source)
Finally, and notably, the China-Britain Business Council explains, (source)
"China is the fastest and most dynamic global market for emerging digital technologies...its digital economy is worth 30% of its GDP."
As the mainland steers through its national economic blueprints, it is undergoing a shift towards high-tech output. For a system of this scale to transition into a high-tech workforce, it requires highly disciplined, technologically proficient thinkers, capable of making the advances that will position China as a leader in technology development. The mainland curriculum prioritises computational logic and engineering mechanics over cross-curricular exploration, preparing the human infrastructure required to run the world's most dynamic digital economy.
Conclusion: Two divergent paths to a technological society
Hong Kong and Mainland China are dealing with the same technology, but approaching it according to the wider needs of society.
Both have realised that their future development depends on technological literacy. Both realise that thinking skills are of paramount importance, with China placing more emphasis on computational thinking and Hong Kong a greater emphasis on cross-curricular student agency and innovation.
The divergence raises an interesting wider question that other countries could benefit from considering: is it better for primary children to be given access to technological tools to create with, or to focus on understanding how the tools actually work?
The answer may not depend on the educational philosophy at all, but rather on what kind of society you are trying to build.
Where did you learn how to solve problems effectively? To communicate a point? Or to try again after failure?
The answer may not be in a classroom. It may be on the playground, building dens, or by negotiating the rules of street games!
Thinking skills are more important than ever, but many children spend less time in the practical, unstructured environments that develop them.
According to the Ofcom report summary, 'Media use and attitudes', (link), 'YouTube and SnapChat lead the way when it comes to screen time. Across 8 - 14s, children spend about 48 minutes a day on YouTube and 45 minutes on Snapchat.' The full report, 'Online Nation' (link) stated, '8 - 14 year olds spent 2 hours 59 minutes per day online' and 'as the child age increases, so too does the amount of time they spend online.'
Save the Children (link) reported that 'Only one in four children play out regularly on their street compared to their grandparents generation where almost three-quarters said they played outside a few times a week.'
Helen Dodd, Professor of Child Psychology at the University of Exeter explained, (link)
"To have just 27% of children playing outside compared to 80% in the past represents a huge change to the nature of childhood. It's logical to expect this to have consequences for young people's development. As a society, we're not taking this seriously enough."
Identifying and teaching soft skills
I have written about the value of metacognition. I have also examined how different countries are ensuring that students remain active and critical thinkers, as AI tools become available.
In order to evaluate and ensure children's thinking and other soft skills, we must first be clear about the exact skills we require.
In 2012, Margaret Hilton and James Pellegrino, working for the National Research Council in the United States, led a committee to define what had been vaguely called "21st-century skills" or "soft skills." (link) They looked at decades of psychological and educational research and realized that human competencies generally fall into three categories:
Cognitive skills: Problem-solving, processing information, and thinking critically.
Interpersonal, or social skills: Communicating, collaborating, and reading relationships.
Intrapersonal skills: Managing emotions, stress, behaviours, and goals.
At the moment, many schools incorporate the teaching of these soft skills into traditional subjects across the curriculum.
Resilience is developed in PE, discussed in PSHE schemes, and practised through activities like redrafting writing and debugging code.
Spoken communication is taught as part of English and Drama, gaining even more traction after oracy was highlighted in the UK Curriculum and Assessment Review as one of the "five areas of applied knowledge" needing more attention.
Problem-solving is taught through mathematical reasoning, computational thinking, and scientific enquiry.
Many schools do an incredible job at teaching and developing the soft skills that children need, balancing these with the knowledge and study skills needed to succeed academically.
But as childhood is changing, is it time for a more systematic approach to teaching and assessing these skills,? How can this be achieved without adding to teachers' workload and an already burgeoning curriculum?
Mapping the essential skills
If we are to build a systematic approach, we cannot rely on a vague definition of 'soft skills'. We need to be clear about the categories of skills we expect young people to develop. This will enable us to plan activities to develop these skills and to make informed judgments as to whether children are developing as they should be.
Using the National Research Council's framework, a comprehensive primary roadmap for these skills would encompass:
Cognitive skills (How we think): These would include critical thinking (the ability to question information), research, planning, effective problem solving, learning agency (fostering learners who take ownership of their learning), metacognition (thinking strategies), learning (knowing and using effective strategies for recall), digital literacy (understanding and using technology)
Interpersonal skills (How we relate): This moves beyond mere talking to oracy and discussion, active listening, leadership, teamwork and empathy and citizenship
Intrapersonal skills (How we manage): This includes curiosity, resilience, organisation, reflection and self-care
What does progression look like?
A systematic approach requires us to look at these skills not as inherent personality traits, but as skills that can be developed sequentially. Just as we have clear progression frameworks for writing or addition, we need a clear progression framework for human competencies.
For example, resilience in Reception might look like a child buttoning up their coat against a struggle. In Year 6, resilience might be a child trying the same piece of writing, calculation or design problem several times independently until they succeed.
By breaking these skills down into developmental milestones, teachers can track progress without drowning in extra paperwork.
Below, I have provided example milestones for some of the skills listed above:
Cognitive skill: Problem solving
Year | Milestone |
Reception | Trial, error and self regulation Tries a physical solution to a problem (i.e. fitting a jigsaw piece in a puzzle) and if it fails, tries a different solution rather than giving up |
1 | Simple verbalisation Verbally identifies what the problem is and suggests at least two different ways to solve it before taking action |
2 | Goal-directed selection Chooses a specific tool or strategy based on the nature of the problem and explains why they chose it |
3 | Decomposition Breaks a larger problem down into smaller, manageable parts and tackles them one at a time |
4 | Step-by-step sequencing and monitoring Plans a multi-step solution ahead of time and actively checks if the plan is working midway through the task |
5 | Evaluating and pattern recognition Recognises patterns within a problem and similarities between a current problem and previous problems |
6 | Critical tool evaluation and output verification Evaluates the best method to solve a problem (independent though v asking a peer, v asking a digital/AI tool) and actively verifies the output |
Interpersonal skill: Active listening
Year | Milestone |
Reception | Whole-body focus and basic recall Demonstrates active listening through body language (looking at the speaker) and can repeat the last phrase or instruction spoken |
1 | Conversational turn-taking and questioning Listens to a story without interrupting and generates a single question that directly connects to what has just been said |
2 | Non-verbal cues and basic clarification Listens to multi-step instructions and can rephrase them back to a peer or teacher to verify understanding before starting work |
3 | Active summarisation Listens to a short presentation or explanation and can accurately extract and record 2-3 pieces of factual information from the spoken audio alone |
4 | Collaborative idea building Listens to a peer explain a point of view during a discussion activity and can clearly summarise the peer's argument before presenting their own counter point |
5 | Perspective tracking and respectful dissent Listens to a multi-person discussion or audio track and can accurately identify the emotional tone, underlying motives and different viewpoints of the speakers |
6 | Critical auditory evaluation and register-shifting Critically analyses a spoken argument, lecture or audio clip to actively identify logical flaws, unbacked assertions or potential bias |
Intrapersonal skill: Curiosity
Year | Milestone |
Reception | Multi-sensory investigation Instinctively explores new objects, spaces or ideas using multiple senses and openly asks "Why" or "How" questions when encountering something familiar. Primary focus: Instinctive exploration |
1 | Question formulation ("What if...?") Moves beyond simple "Why" to ask open ended "What would happen if..." questions about a topic, showing a desire to test boundaries. Primary focus: Hypothesising |
2 | Directed information gathering Identifies a specific topic they want to know more about and actively seeks out an immediate resource to find the answer. Primary focus: Intentional curiosity |
3 | Gap identification Recognises when information is missing from a text or presentation and asks targeted, specific questions to fill in that specific knowledge gap Primary focus: Critical curiosity |
4 | Multi-source investigation When a topic sparks interest, independently seeks out more than one source of information (e.g. comparing a book with an educational video) to explore it further. Primary focus: Independent exploration |
5 | Sustained inquiry and inter-subject links Pursues an avenue of inquiry independently over several days, connecting to a curious spark in one subject (e.g. History) to another (e.g. Science or Art) Primary focus: Sustained, autonomous inquiry |
6 | Strategic iteration including use of technology Uses curiosity to drive advances inquiry, intentionally designs, tests and iterates complex questions or digital searches to unearth deep, nuanced information rather than accepting surface-level answers Primary focus: Strategic inquiry |
Putting this into practice: infused skills vs isolated subject
How do we include these milestones into school provision, without significantly increasing the workload of teachers and adding content to a curriculum that is already full?
Broadly, schools would have a choice of two models, each with its own benefits and hurdles.
Option 1 - Infused skills. When skills like the ones above are included as goals in existing lessons, those skills become regularly practised and familiar. By ensuring that children have opportunities to develop their discussion, listening, problem solving and curiosity in lessons like Maths, existing planning and timetables can be modified, not rewritten. The downside of this approach is that when skills are embedded across subjects, they can end up being assessed nowhere, making it hard to know if children are progressing.
Option 2 - Isolated subject. Creating a dedicated subject called 'Soft skills', or 'Personal skills' would ensure regular and dedicated time given to activities that developed the above, essential skills. Assessment would become systematic and children would see the significance of these skills by being given dedicated time to work on them. The downsides would be taking curriculum time from elsewhere, and a risk that these skills become isolated in this new subject, instead of practised all the time.
The Educational Endowment Foundation (EEF) refers to teaching of soft skills as 'Social and Emotional Learning' (SEL). (link) These are competencies that ensure success in school and later life.
The EEF website states,
"'Social and emotional skills are essential for children's development - they support effective learning and are linked to positive outcomes in later life."
The EEF SEL framework lists five competencies which form the basis of children's development of these skills. These are:
Self-awareness
Self-regulation
Social awareness
Relationship skills
Responsible decision making
The EEF webpage, 'Improving Social and Emotional Learning in Primary Schools' (link) contains a wealth of useful materials, guidance, frameworks and case studies to help schools ensure that children develop these necessary skills.
The case studies are particularly useful and interesting, showing how schools have approached the dilemma of adding more content to the school curriculum. The case study about Billesley Primary School stated,
"We set about teaching SEL strategies discretely at the start of every lesson, by presenting the children with an engaging, low risk question that was unrelated to the learning."
This approach seems like a good middle ground between completely redesigning lessons to infuse soft skills, and teaching soft skills in a standalone subject.
Conclusion: recognising change and adapting
Soft skills are the foundation for success, both academically and personally. Children who listen effectively, verbalise their ideas, solve problems, are creative and show resilience are far more likely to succeed at school than children who have not developed these skills.
Schools must be vigilant and recognise ways that the world is changing. All screentime is not equal, use of digital technology can provide incredible creative opportunities and help children overcome barriers. Screen use can also take time away from the types of activities, like playing outside, exploring nature, problem solving and spoken communication which develop the skills that children need.
In this blog post, I wrote about how different countries are addressing the use of AI by pupils in education. While the approaches differed, they were unified by consideration of the importance of preserving children's thinking and avoiding cognitive offload.
In order to effectively establish what children's thinking and other skills should look like, we need to be clear about the expectations for different year groups. We can then say whether digital tools like AI are contributing or detracting from these.
We don't necessarily need to further crowd the curriculum or take away from the knowledge taught in other subjects. Greg Ashman said, "Knowledge is what we think with". I love this quote because it speaks both about the value of knowledge, but also about the importance of using it. As we prepare children for a world where information is increasingly readily available, it will be the harmony of their soft skills and their knowledge that determines their success.
