“Fun” Education and Wagging the Dog

Edudive has a run-down on 6 offbeat MOOCs that merge education with fun. I don’t mean to come off as Buzz Killington swaddled in a big, cold, wet blanket but…

Come on. Seriously? A course based on The Walking Dead that “calls for examining the role of public health in a pandemic and the science of hope?”  Would I take that class? Heck, yeah. I love that show. Does that mean that it’s a good idea to offer college credit for this froth?

There’s a very simple test that we can apply to any educational experience described as “fun.” Come to think of it, it’s a valid test to apply to any educational experience, period. It’s a two-parter:

  1. What are we trying to teach?
  2. Would this knowledge / skillset be worth pursuing independent of this exercise? 

For most people, the role of public health in a pandemic is, at best, an interesting magazine article or TV news piece. Everybody who signs up for a class based on The Walking Dead who would have had no use for a class called “The Role of Public Health in a Pandemic” is probably wasting his or her time. Likewise, how much useful science or cooking knowledge is really going to be conveyed in a class that visits the kitchens of great chefs to examine “how their recipes work?”

I’ve got nothing against exploring the artistic or literary merits of comic books, teaching students to write commercial science fiction and fantasy, coming at linguistics from the standpoint of swear words, or teaching what we can about music by studying the works of the Beatles. These all kind of sound like fun. But if I want to have fun, geeking out and reading comic books is more fun than listening to somebody tell me how “important” they are. Ditto listening to the Beatles.

Likewise, if I want to learn something, you don’t have to patronize me. I don’t have to pretend that I’m watching my favorite TV show in order to force myself to learn something that I’m genuinely interested in. Just recently we looked at how much fun there is to be had in doing basic science. Learning something new, demonstrating the knowledge, accomplishing something — these are all highly pleasurable experiences in and of themselves.

Obviously, there is nothing wrong with juicing up course content with material that is likely to attract the learner’s attention. But creating a “fun” experience that brings along a little learning for the ride — especially when the learning is of questionable value — is the tail wagging the dog.

The real fun should come from what’s being learned. And what’s being learned should be worth learning.

junglerun Photo by Barry Lewis

Fear, Subordination, and Games

I’ve just finished a couple of posts at Transparency Revolution and the Speculist exploring the relationship between technology and a culture of subordination in the current (apparent) dismantling of employment as we have known it. The basic premise is that technology is always going to be better at being subordinate than human beings so it only makes sense that businesses — which have fostered a culture of subordination — will jump at opportunities to automate. This leaves a workforce with fewer and fewer jobs to go around who have already had much of the creative / entrepreneurial spirit pounded out of them. Not a good combination.

So it was with this scenario in mind that I read these very interesting thoughts from Google visionary Sebastian Thrun:

Google Glass creator says ‘fear-based’ testing regimes block technology

The biggest principle is to go at your own speed – eliminate this very strong synchronicity. It is the main obstacle for technology, to overcome the belief that a teacher and group of students have to go through the same thing at the same time,” he said. Education should learn from the positive side of gaming – reward, accomplishment and fun. An online environment would be able to use data about students’ performance to more scientifically assess their progress, and how successfully a certain course is engaging students.

Here’s an interesting dichotomy. In the corporate setting, technology in the form of automation supports the entrenched culture of subordination and conformity. In education, it can be the means by which classrooms are liberated from those paradigms.  But what can take the place of fear and rigid conformity? Thrun has some thoughts on that, as well:

The way the system administers tests is fundamentally wrong. [It is done] more in a summative way, and we ask the question ‘has the student done the correct thing’ and we do it more in a fear inspiring way, forcing a student to submit to a date irrespective of how long it takes them to learn. It should be more like a feedback mechanism to help them understand how much progress they have made, with pervasive challenges repeated privately and as often as they want until they feel confident.

Hey, wait a minute. That kind of thinking sounds familiar. It reminds me a bit of this:

Lee Sheldon, co-director of the game design program at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (No. 370), starts each semester by telling his class the same thing: “Congratulations, you have an F.” While the students wrap their heads around their predicament, he quickly adds, “But you can level up.”

Sheldon writes and designs video games, but right now he’s most famous for how he teaches his students: like they’re playing a massive multiplayer online role-playing game. He divides the class into small groups called “guilds,” which complete quests such as taking tests and making presentations to earn points and then advance to a new level. At the end of the course, he determines the grade by points and skill level. Ever since he turned education into a game, he says, “the average letter grade in the class went from a C to a B, and attendance is almost perfect.

Actually, the connection between the two is not terribly surprising. Thrun is a founder of Udacity, which is developing a model of delivering online courseware inspired in part by the online role-playing games. Shared creative spaces, social tools, games — these all seem like positive steps forward for delivering educational content.

And excellent alternatives to conformity and fear.

 

Online Schools Failing?

Here’s an interesting analysis of how online educational options are evolving in Massachusetts. Even as the state’s one existing virtual school is producing some pretty sub-standard results, the state is preparing to allow for a number of additional online schools to be started. (Here’s a similar analysis from Colorado a while back with more data points around the failure of the online schools.)

In Massachusetts, the goal is to provide online education as an option for “students who have been expelled from conventional schools, as well as kids who are chronically ill, teen parents, actors, Olympic athletes and bullying victims.” I think this is an excellent start, but I think we have to be very careful comparing test results for this mixed demographic with the overall student population. I would say the same holds true for Colorado and anywhere else where online alternatives for secondary students are being made available.

Who are the students signing up for these programs, and why? Until we know more about that — specifically, how well these kids were doing in the traditional environment — it’s pretty hard to assess the success rate of the online program.

The effectiveness of online tools and learning within the classroom environment is taken pretty much as given. And the effectiveness of such tools as a supplement to a traditional classroom setting is also easy to demonstrate. (Check out the Khan Academy success stories.) There is also abundant evidence that online tools contribute significantly to homeschool success.

It’s only when online education is offered as a straight-up alternative to a traditional classroom that we see these negative results. Is this a problem with implementation? Is it a lack of structure? Is it the deomgraphic mix of the students who participate? It could be a combination of these.

Also, you can’t rule out the possibility that competition for funding could be playing a role. If school districts and school boards are not particularly inclined to see funds diverted to these efforts in the first place — and both the Colorado and Massachusetts stories linked above make it clear that often they are not — how successful are these bodies likely to find these programs?

On the other hand, if pure online programs really don’t work as an alternative to the traditional classroom, this once again makes for an interesting contrast between between secondary and higher education. As we noted a while back, in a classroom setting, secondary schools are far ahead of colleges and universities in their adoption of technology. Paradoxically, the online alternative to college is emerging as an increasingly viable option.

Will the kinks eventually be worked out for secondary online education? Stay tuned…

The Joy of Doing Something Real

At Edudemic, Jeff Dunn describes How To Get Students Excited To ‘Do’ Science. It’s not as complicated as you might think:

Citizen science programs allow students to participate in real science. To date, students in the GLOBE Program have contributed more than 100 million measurements to the program’s database, creating meaningful, standardized, multi-national professional-grade data sets that can be used in support of university-level scientific research. Scientists at NASA, NOAA and NSF develop the program’s protocols, ensuring students are participating in rigorous, relevant education. Not only do programs like GLOBE foster the next generation of scientists and STEM leaders, but also help students develop critical thinking skills that will benefit them for the rest of their lives.

There are two major principles that make the GLOBE program Dunn writes about such a success:

It lets students do something real.

It lets them really do it.

That second point is key. So many “hands-on” exercises have students performing a simulation of a real experience. Here the students are really doing the measuring and reporting, collecting data that will be used for ongoing research.

As motivating and fun as games and simulations may be, they are by definition at least a step removed from the actual experience. Students are more highly engaged when they are doing something real (and when they are the ones really doing it) in part because of the satisfaction that naturally emerges from accomplishing anything. Learning to use a new tool to perform a particular task is especially rewarding because we get both the satisfaction of accomplishment and the boost that comes along with performing the task better in some way. This is another way of saying that if the tool doesn’t enhance our ability to perform a task, there is no point in using it. The reason technology exists in the first place is to increase our capability. A car, for example,  increases how fast and how far we can move. Or a calculator increases how quickly we can come up with the answer to a complicated math problem.

When we provide students with tools that make them even more effective at doing something real, we are firing on all cylinders. Make those things happen in concert and you have a highly engaged classroom.

(Photo by Deutsche Fotothek.)

It’s All About the Impossible

Check out ImpossibleHQ for a free download of a great educational eBook: 50 Quotes to Inspire You to Do the Impossible. A few choice ones:

To the timid and hesitating everything is impossible because it seems so — Sir Walter Scott

The limits of the possible can only be defined by going beyond them into the impossible — Arthur C. Clarke

It is either easy or impossible — Salvador Dali

This is not only a great resource for helping students to see past limitations, it is a useful model for the kind of project that should be well within the capability of today’s well-technology-equipped students.

Rather than just taking inspiration from reading a book like this, students can publish their own book with quotes they find particularly inspiring. (And note the careful attribution of all the images used — another good example set.)

We’re already mentioned BoomWriter as a great resource for collaborative writing projects. It would be a good choice for a book with more of a story or narrative focus. Glogster we have also mentioned a s good resource for creating posters — including those of the inspirational variety. For a full-on eBook, the best bet might be Google Office suite. There are also some fantastic iPad apps for creating this sort of thing, although those will all involve a certain amount of cost.

 

 

 

Teaching Money Management

Money management is a crucial skill, one that needs more focus and attention than it currently gets (particularly with older kids.) Here’s a good summary of options from Emerging EdTech:

1. iAllowance — Not only does iAllowance teach your kids about saving money and personal finance, but you can even set up money management tools for chores, allowance and goals. It’s a great tool for motivating your child, as it will show them how much they need to save to have enough money for something they might want to buy. It’s perfect for the five to ten-year age range. Its cost is $4.99.

2. Savings Spree — Winner of the Parents’ Choice Gold Award and several other accolades, the Savings Spree app is all about teaching kids the basics of money and personal finances. The game demonstrates the choices involved with making financial decisions, as well as some of the uncontrollable factors that come along with managing your own money. The interface is kid friendly and extremely engaging. The reviews would appear to make this $6 app more than worth it.

3. P2K Money — P2K Money is a free option that mimics much of what you get with iAllowance. If you need an app that will maintain some of the functionality of the paid options but with a free download; this is the way to go. It is more geared towards allowing your kids to manage their money, and less ‘educational’.  This application would be a good option for kids between the ages of 8 to 13.

Is it just me or in this case does the free app seem like the less appealing option? Normally I’m all for free ed tech software, but there’s something about this subject area that says there should be a price, if only a small one.

 

Enabling Possibility

At Teachthought, Terry Heick writes about The Only Thing You Need To Be A 21st Century Teacher. It’s probably no what you think:

The reality is, in 2013 there are an incredible variety of digital tools, learning models, and supporting data to suggest a thousand different approaches to preparing students for the work of their lives. That may be the defining characteristic of learning early in the 21st century learning.

Possibility.

If nothing else, every classroom should be an highly curious, question-based, connected and joyful petri dish of learning experimentation, adaptation, and change.

It could well be that embracing rapid change is the most important skill that we can help our students develop. Learning to recognize and respond to new possibilities as they emerge has always been an important skill, but never more so than in what has been described as both the age possibility and the age of capability. The two go hand in hand. An environment rich in possibility is one where students truly can unlock their own potential. We have to help them expand not only their view of the world, but their view of themselves and the role they can play in the world.

All implementations of technology for education should be evaluated with this challenge in mind.

Photo by Commander John Bortniak, NOAA Corps

Three Words

Kirk MacDonald, president of PubMatic, has some words of advice for fresh college graduates with a none-too-encouraging title:

Sorry, College Grads, I Probably Won’t Hire You

His advice to young people looking to land their first job in “media, technology, or related fields” can be summed up in three words: learn some programming.

Generally, I think this advice makes sense. In fact, I find it odd that in this day and age it’s possible to graduate from high school (much less college) without having written some computer code. Assuming there are still some rigorous secondary educational programs out there — the kind where kids have to learn algebra and geometry and how to diagram sentences — a little basic computer programming would fit in nicely.

Of course, if we’re really facing the shortage of technically literate employees that McDonald claims, we’re going to need more than that. Fortunately, technical education (as distinct from certification / credentials) has never been easier to come by.

 

(Cross-posted from Transparency Revolution.)

The Entrepreneurial Classroom

We recently  looked at an app that lets kids create their own games.

The founder of the Incubator School, which opened last week in Los Angeles, wants to take it up a notch from there. Already on the record telling kids to make games rather than just play them, with her new school Sujata Bhatt wants kids to build a startup around the games they create — or any other sound business idea:

Students at the Incubator School will spend the first two years (sixth and seventh grades) learning the principles of entrepreneurship before actually launching businesses in the eighth grade. It’s too early to predict what kinds of ventures the students will launch, but Bhatt exudes confidence that many students already have a natural disposition for entrepreneurship.

Teaching kids to build a business may sound exotic and cutting edge, but the truth is that our economy is rapidly changing, and nothing is evolving faster than the nature of employment.  As I was just observing earlier today, encouraging technology startups may be the key to improving the employment picture. Or to put it in more stark terms, the only job that may be available in the future is the one that the student (graduate / job-seeker) creates for him- or herself.

If students do have a natural disposition for entrepreneurship — and I suspect that more do than we would realize — we need to look carefully at the environment that we are putting most kids in and ask whether it is doing anything to encourage that vital skill? My guess is that this story is more or less typical:

In elementary school, my friends and I would re-sell snacks that we purchased from Costco at a lower price than what the vending machines and lunch lady charged. Profit margins were low, but hey, making any money at that age was quite exciting.

Unfortunately, the school didn’t appreciate such “disruptive” activity. We were (partially) shut down and left with a bitter aftertaste of the school system.

The Incubator School is looking to create a different kind of environment, one where that kind of activity would be encouraged and, presumably, rewarded. Perusing their Digital Sandbox (I like that name), I observed that they are looking at gaming development systems, augmented reality, maker spaces — all the kinds of things we have been describing here as potential components of an overall shared creative space.

So there may be an interesting convergence here. In the near future, all schools might need to emulate some aspects of Incubator School, if they are going to help students develop vital life skills around creating and managing their own opportunities. To be effective in helping kids develop these skills, providing shared creative spaces may be of paramount importance.

 

To Google or Not to Google?

That is the question.

At Edutopia, Beth Holland is taking a hard stance against students citing Google as a research source (which makes sense) and against using it to find things (which doesn’t make all that much sense.)

The part that makes sense is helping students to understand that Google is not a source of information per se, and that it must never be cited as such. Students need to understand whether what they are looking for is a definition of a term, an overview of a topic such as might be found in an encyclopedia, or more in-depth information such as might be found in a book on the particular subject. When you type a search term into Google, it will bring back an unfiltered combination of those things.

So what to do? Well, the obvious answer is to eschew Google.

Holland tells this story:

While on my Google tirade, I happened into a kindergarten class. In the midst of exploring dinosaurs, one little girl asked a question that the teacher didn’t know. “Let’s Google it,” the teacher suggested to the student. Unable to contain myself, I jumped in and showed the student how to access World Book Kids ­- which not only had information at a lower reading level, but also included text­-to­-speech.

That’s great! But I can’t help but wonder — where would the harm have been if the kindergarten teacher had been allowed to go ahead and use Google and had entered a somewhat more refined search than just, say “dinosaurs,” something more along the lines of dinosaur information for kids.

Of course, citing Google as a source makes no sense. It would be like citing the card catalog as a source. And kids need to understand the differences between the various sources of information they are accessing. Still, whatever those sources are — Google is a great way of getting to them…if you use it properly. Strategic use of search engines is an important life skill (much less educational or research skill) for kids these days. Do we really want to put artificial constraints around how they go about finding information so that things will be more like they were in years gone by?

Search engines get us to the sources of information in a very different way than the research tools of the past. But this is as much a feature as it is a bug. Let’s work on a developing a new set of skills to make the best use of resources available. Google can be an extremely able research assistant if given the right instructions.