This week I wanted to discuss briefly the use of gaming in the classroom. This was sparked both by the article "Gaming the Future" by Jonah Kokodyniak and Barry Joseph and the fact that there is a long history of using computer games in the classroom, especially the elementary classroom (see The Oregon Trail, Number Munchers and many other games from the MECC legacy).
"Gaming the Future" does a great job of demonstrating why the idea of scalability isn't all it's cracked up to be (see "Lessons Learned from Studying How Innovations Can Achieve Scale" by Christopher Dede and Saul Rockman) in the educational context. Indeed, even in this article which tries desperately to show that gaming is a scalable educational innovation they end up admitting that their particular implementation doesn't scale well and significant compromises would have to be made for it to be a scalable project.
The tactic they used to capitalize on students' interest in gaming was to have the students help design a game which would bring global issues to light. Their is no doubt that this can be a successful project -- in small and localized cases. The problem is that game design (at least for the sort of interesting games that students are thinking about and would want to play) takes a significant amount of computer programming skill -- much more than the average, or even exceptional, high schooler would have. In the case examined the school was able to partner with a game design company which supplied most of the labor to put the students' ideas into a workable game but obviously this is not scalable as it would be impossible to find companies willing to dedicate entire teams of game developers to work gratis on a project with high schoolers year after year at every school around the country or even more than a handful.
The idea of having students develop a game is a good one, but perhaps the barriers to entry in computer games (at least as students envision them) is simply too high. The authors suggest alternative solutions such as developing a game inside of "Second Life" but I still feel the result will not achieve the goal of retaining student interest because what they want to do is either too complicated for the medium or still too difficult for them to program on their own. Thus we are left to fall back on what the authors suggest as something which is scalable, the playing of educational games.
The idea of using computer games for educational purposes is no new idea. From the early 1970s through the late 1990s the Minnesota Educational Computing Consortium (MECC) led the way in developing computer games for classroom use including such classics as The Oregon Trail, Number Munchers, Word Munchers and lesser known titles such as Museum Madness. While theses games were (and are) both popular and educational MECC is no more having been sold to commercial vendor The Learning Company in the late 1990s (which in turn was sold to Riverdeep which also holds Broderbund meaning it has a monopoly on almost all classic educational software titles).
My experience with educational software titles is that they do hold student interest and the can teach important concepts. That said they are not very efficient teachers of concepts. Most educational software titles focus on a fairly specific skill or skill set and level yet students must often play the game for many hours to learn all of these concepts thoroughly. It ends up taking much longer than other teaching methods leading me to conclude that educational games are a welcome and educational distraction, may teach some technology skills, reinforce critical thinking skills and so are potentially useful on a limited basis but are not "the future of education" or any of the other things they are occasionally claimed to be. Expecting that students will learn everything (or even large amounts) taught in a classroom setting through games is either naive or wishful but not realistic.
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Technology and Information Literacy - A different vision
Last week we looked at technology and information (media) literacy in Minnesota as it currently stands. Te recap: in 2006 a bill was passed which directed the commissioner of education to “…revise and appropriately embed technology and information literacy standards consistent with recommendations from school media specialists into the state's academic standards and graduation requirements...” Is this enough or is a different vision needed?
If, as Senator Kelley described, technology literacy has become “essential to function in a world flooded and mediated by technology skills” we may need more drastic changes to ensure that all students are adequately educated about technology. Just as the arts, social studies, science, language arts and math have been deemed critical enough for the future success of students in Minnesota that they have received special status by the state in the creation of specific content standards which students must meet prior to graduation perhaps a dedicated set of technological literacy standards should also be established. If our world truly is “flooded and mediated by technology skills” should not fluency with technology on par with traditional academic skills be an essential part of our basic education? Why should technology be relegated to infusion within existing standards? Teachers are often ill-prepared to deal with the history and nature of technology or preparing students for future technologies and instead focus on using existing technologies which only increases our dependence on technology without understanding it. Luckily I am not the first to think of these questions.
In the late 1990s the International Technology Education Association and the Technology for All Americans Project, under the direction of the National Science Foundation and NASA and with input from the National Research Council and the National Academy of Engineering, developed “Standards for Technological Literacy: Content for the Study of Technology” also known as the STL. These standards were specifically designed to combat the problem of a nation increasingly dependent on technology but with a population “largely ignorant of the history and fundamental nature of the technology which sustains it” by increasing the technological literacy of students.
We see that the Minnesota bill does mention technological literacy in concert with information literacy but it seems to have a different result. The STL define technological literacy much more broadly as “the ability to use, manage, assess and understand technology.” Under the legislation passed in Minnesota changes to academic standards aimed at embedding technology and information literacy seem to emphasize the use of technology instead of on an understanding of technology which is arguably more important as specific technologies are constantly changing and skills in the use of technology soon become outdated. If our goal is to prepare students for a world “flooded and mediated by technology skills” perhaps the solution we have arrived at in this well meaning legislation is not working as intended and new solutions to the problem of technological literacy should be explored.
If, as Senator Kelley described, technology literacy has become “essential to function in a world flooded and mediated by technology skills” we may need more drastic changes to ensure that all students are adequately educated about technology. Just as the arts, social studies, science, language arts and math have been deemed critical enough for the future success of students in Minnesota that they have received special status by the state in the creation of specific content standards which students must meet prior to graduation perhaps a dedicated set of technological literacy standards should also be established. If our world truly is “flooded and mediated by technology skills” should not fluency with technology on par with traditional academic skills be an essential part of our basic education? Why should technology be relegated to infusion within existing standards? Teachers are often ill-prepared to deal with the history and nature of technology or preparing students for future technologies and instead focus on using existing technologies which only increases our dependence on technology without understanding it. Luckily I am not the first to think of these questions.
In the late 1990s the International Technology Education Association and the Technology for All Americans Project, under the direction of the National Science Foundation and NASA and with input from the National Research Council and the National Academy of Engineering, developed “Standards for Technological Literacy: Content for the Study of Technology” also known as the STL. These standards were specifically designed to combat the problem of a nation increasingly dependent on technology but with a population “largely ignorant of the history and fundamental nature of the technology which sustains it” by increasing the technological literacy of students.
We see that the Minnesota bill does mention technological literacy in concert with information literacy but it seems to have a different result. The STL define technological literacy much more broadly as “the ability to use, manage, assess and understand technology.” Under the legislation passed in Minnesota changes to academic standards aimed at embedding technology and information literacy seem to emphasize the use of technology instead of on an understanding of technology which is arguably more important as specific technologies are constantly changing and skills in the use of technology soon become outdated. If our goal is to prepare students for a world “flooded and mediated by technology skills” perhaps the solution we have arrived at in this well meaning legislation is not working as intended and new solutions to the problem of technological literacy should be explored.
Thursday, November 8, 2007
Media Literacy in Minnesota
With all this discussion about media literacy I thought it may be helpful to discuss technology and information (media) literacy education as it stands in Minnesota.
From the early 1990s through 2000 the State Board of Education and the Department of Children, Families and Learning worked to create what was known as the Profiles of Learning. Embedded within these result-oriented graduation standards was the desire to prepare students for the changing world and workplace including an understanding of the need to the technically literate. When the profile of learning was repealed in 2003 it was replaced by a set of academic standards in five core areas (language arts, science, math, social studies and the arts) which did not include any treatment of technology or information literacy. Though districts were free to create or implement such standards on their own they would neither be required or developed by the state.
In 2006 recognizing the importance of media literacy to the future of students the Minnesota Educational Media Organization (MEMO), which represents school media and information technology professionals, and the governor lobbied for the inclusion of technology and information literacy. Senator Kelley former chair of the Education Committee described technology and information literacy as “essential to function in a world flooded and mediated by technology skills.” During the 2006 legislative session a bill (co-authored by Sen. Kelley) was passed which directed the commissioner of education to “…revise and appropriately embed technology and information literacy standards consistent with recommendations from school media specialists into the state's academic standards and graduation requirements...” While the bill did not require separate media literacy standards be adopted ti did require that as existing standards came up for revision and new standards were created they should include some media literacy as appropriate.
As standards come up for revision they are being modified to include technology and information literacy to some extent but perhaps the standards with the most information literacy embedded are the Language Arts standards. These already include some information literacy skills but have not come up for revision since this bill was passed. This gives some hope for the future if more information literacy skills are embedded when they come up for revision.
From the early 1990s through 2000 the State Board of Education and the Department of Children, Families and Learning worked to create what was known as the Profiles of Learning. Embedded within these result-oriented graduation standards was the desire to prepare students for the changing world and workplace including an understanding of the need to the technically literate. When the profile of learning was repealed in 2003 it was replaced by a set of academic standards in five core areas (language arts, science, math, social studies and the arts) which did not include any treatment of technology or information literacy. Though districts were free to create or implement such standards on their own they would neither be required or developed by the state.
In 2006 recognizing the importance of media literacy to the future of students the Minnesota Educational Media Organization (MEMO), which represents school media and information technology professionals, and the governor lobbied for the inclusion of technology and information literacy. Senator Kelley former chair of the Education Committee described technology and information literacy as “essential to function in a world flooded and mediated by technology skills.” During the 2006 legislative session a bill (co-authored by Sen. Kelley) was passed which directed the commissioner of education to “…revise and appropriately embed technology and information literacy standards consistent with recommendations from school media specialists into the state's academic standards and graduation requirements...” While the bill did not require separate media literacy standards be adopted ti did require that as existing standards came up for revision and new standards were created they should include some media literacy as appropriate.
As standards come up for revision they are being modified to include technology and information literacy to some extent but perhaps the standards with the most information literacy embedded are the Language Arts standards. These already include some information literacy skills but have not come up for revision since this bill was passed. This gives some hope for the future if more information literacy skills are embedded when they come up for revision.
Thursday, November 1, 2007
New Media Literacy or Why Johnny Can't Research
The reading this week on media literacy provides an interesting place to start a discussion but I feel it it significantly lacking in providing a clear understanding of the real-world challenges found in a new media world. Specifically I feel the report fails to address the lack of both research skills and an understanding of intellectual property rights which are both key to being an active member of a participatory society.
The report does touch on the "ethical challenge" of a participatory culture but this is primarily discussed as what kind of information is appropriate to make public and appropriate conduct in a participatory society. While behavior in online worlds and knowing what, when and why information should be made public are critical skills there is perhaps a more pressing need for an understanding of intellectual property and rights. This is needed if for no other reason than to encourage a real debate about the changing nature of IP and what changes, if any, should be codified in law. Much of the participatory culture, especially as it is found on the Internet, relies on collaboration, "re-mixing", "re-using" and sharing on a scale and with ease not considered in the past. These changes require a response and an understanding of both the legal and ethical issues surrounding intellectual property something few adults, much less students have yet to fully understand. Furthermore, as interest in participatory culture makes it's way into the classrooms teachers must be prepared to deal with the challenges of grading and attributing these works as appropriate without harming the participatory nature.
Secondly there is the issue of search and research skills. As noted with the barrier to entry so low in a participatory culture there is a tremendous amount of data creation. In many ways this is the benefit of such a culture. Those in the know are more able than ever to share and collaborate without inhibitions or roadblocks. In many other ways this presents a challenge as the total amount of data and knowledge continues to grow exponentially and may easily contain inaccurate or misleading information. The amount of information available and the wide range of quality can easily become a problem for the novice, or even intermediate, researcher. Indeed, one of the skills which can potentially make you tremendously successful is the ability to locate and retrieve high quality information, from a variety of sources, about a given topic and analyze it as appropriate. This is a skill sorely lacking in much modern curriculum and one that I feel was glossed over in this report on media literacy when it should be a cornerstone of a media literate society.
The report does touch on the "ethical challenge" of a participatory culture but this is primarily discussed as what kind of information is appropriate to make public and appropriate conduct in a participatory society. While behavior in online worlds and knowing what, when and why information should be made public are critical skills there is perhaps a more pressing need for an understanding of intellectual property and rights. This is needed if for no other reason than to encourage a real debate about the changing nature of IP and what changes, if any, should be codified in law. Much of the participatory culture, especially as it is found on the Internet, relies on collaboration, "re-mixing", "re-using" and sharing on a scale and with ease not considered in the past. These changes require a response and an understanding of both the legal and ethical issues surrounding intellectual property something few adults, much less students have yet to fully understand. Furthermore, as interest in participatory culture makes it's way into the classrooms teachers must be prepared to deal with the challenges of grading and attributing these works as appropriate without harming the participatory nature.
Secondly there is the issue of search and research skills. As noted with the barrier to entry so low in a participatory culture there is a tremendous amount of data creation. In many ways this is the benefit of such a culture. Those in the know are more able than ever to share and collaborate without inhibitions or roadblocks. In many other ways this presents a challenge as the total amount of data and knowledge continues to grow exponentially and may easily contain inaccurate or misleading information. The amount of information available and the wide range of quality can easily become a problem for the novice, or even intermediate, researcher. Indeed, one of the skills which can potentially make you tremendously successful is the ability to locate and retrieve high quality information, from a variety of sources, about a given topic and analyze it as appropriate. This is a skill sorely lacking in much modern curriculum and one that I feel was glossed over in this report on media literacy when it should be a cornerstone of a media literate society.
Thursday, October 25, 2007
Open Source and the Classroom
I'm excited this week to hear a speaker on using open source in the classroom. I was also excited to see that included in the article sent out this week is a list of many open source applications, their purpose and commercial counterparts which might be used in the classroom. This list includes Nvu something I discussed here just last week. Other software from the list has been mentioned on my personal blog over the years.
Obviously I'm a big proponent of open source software, but I am not just a user. I am also a developer. Although much of the software I write is of limited use to others I do attempt to release it under an open source license when I am able to and this has allowed me to meet many interesting people and help people in ways that, even I, have not expected. In fact you can see one of my more popular contributions to the open source community on this SourceForge project.
This is not to say that I don't think there are any problems with open source software. As evidenced by these recent articles posted by popular computer pundit John C. Dvorak there are some who believe that there are significant problems with open source software. I encourage you to read through some of the comments to those postings yourself and come up with your own questions and conclusions. As for my part, I think you'll see in my comments there that I generally believe open source software can and does work but that people such as Marc make unfair and unequal comparisons with some commercial software and support. Below I will include one of my comments as an example:
Obviously I'm a big proponent of open source software, but I am not just a user. I am also a developer. Although much of the software I write is of limited use to others I do attempt to release it under an open source license when I am able to and this has allowed me to meet many interesting people and help people in ways that, even I, have not expected. In fact you can see one of my more popular contributions to the open source community on this SourceForge project.
This is not to say that I don't think there are any problems with open source software. As evidenced by these recent articles posted by popular computer pundit John C. Dvorak there are some who believe that there are significant problems with open source software. I encourage you to read through some of the comments to those postings yourself and come up with your own questions and conclusions. As for my part, I think you'll see in my comments there that I generally believe open source software can and does work but that people such as Marc make unfair and unequal comparisons with some commercial software and support. Below I will include one of my comments as an example:
Marc, I still think you’re missing points and inaccurately comparing open source and commercial software.
First, I think you’re generally comparing open source server type applications e.g. Apache, MySQL, PHP, etc. with commercial end-user applications e.g. MS Office. This is a misleading comparison because many Windows server applications are at last as confusing and difficult to get running as Linux ones. I’ve done a fair amount of work in Windows data centers and have to say that many commercial applications used by corporate IT are a complete bear to work with. Thus I think this is an unfair and misleading argument, most commercial software, at least when compared to open source software that does the same thing and when talking about server type services is NOT just a point and click install.
Second, I think you continue to berate the support and documentation available for open source software and while there is a problem with free support and documentation of open source software there are alternatives if you’re willing to spend a little money. For example, you can easily hire developers to add features or fix bugs. There are also lots of consulting companies, mine included, which can and do write documentation for open source software and/or troubleshoot and provide solutions just as any technical support from a commercial software vendor might do. The faslehood here is that you can get something for nothing. If you intend to use open source software in a company or other critical environment you should either hire a developer on staff who knows the software and can support it or look into purchasing a support contract for the software from an outside company. Many people who use open source software “because it’s free” end up disappointed in many cases and I would argue that’s because they selected it for the wrong reason or didn’t understand what they were getting into. Just because it’s open source doesn’t mean you won’t have to spend any money on it if you want to run it at peak performance in a mission critical environment.
Thursday, October 18, 2007
A free website editor
Once upon a time the Netscape Corporation offered a website editor bundled with their browser. Over time that editor grew old an outdated and most people eventually moved on to newer tools such as (the expensive) Dreamweaver. Eventually Netscape essentially closed shop and spun all of their products off to the non-profit Mozilla foundation now known as the creator of Firefox. In any event they did some additional work on the Netscape Composer product which eventually became a part of the Mozilla suite but which never seemed to catch on.
Around 2003 the Linspire Linux company wanted to make a web site editor available in Linux and because the Mozilla code had been converted and was available on Linux they decided to support the improvement of the Composer product and make that available. At the end we ended up with a new free website editor called Nvu. Nvu was great, it offered many of the same features and ease of use found in Dreamweaver for free and was available for Linux, Windows and Mac. The only problem is that the funding was not sustained after an initial release and the developer stopped work on the project and is now working on writing an entirely new editor for Mozilla which appears quite promising but is coming quite slowly and could be several years away.
Thanks to the open source nature of Nvu other developers were able to step in and continue fixing bugs and problems in the software as well as minor feature improvements. Unfortunatly for licensing reasons they had to pick a new name so all new releases are offered under the KompoZer name. KompoZer is still being maintained as a free web editor and for people not looking to use the really advanced features of Dreamweaver I would argue it is possibly the best graphical webpage editor available today. It's fairly simple for novice users to grasp the creation and editing of pages with this tool, though you do still need to have some understanding of how to upload pages and linking structures.
KompoZer is a great tool for use in the classroom precisely because it is free. You can install it without charge on all of the computers in your lab or classroom, students should be able to grasp it fairly quickly and of course students with computers at home can download it and use it for free at home as well. This is a significant benefit for use in education over commercial software such as Dreamweaver. As an added benefit the fact that it operates in a similar manner to Dreamweaver means that if you eventually grow out of it and need some advanced feature in Dreamweaver chances are you'll feel right at home and be able to easily make the transition.
Around 2003 the Linspire Linux company wanted to make a web site editor available in Linux and because the Mozilla code had been converted and was available on Linux they decided to support the improvement of the Composer product and make that available. At the end we ended up with a new free website editor called Nvu. Nvu was great, it offered many of the same features and ease of use found in Dreamweaver for free and was available for Linux, Windows and Mac. The only problem is that the funding was not sustained after an initial release and the developer stopped work on the project and is now working on writing an entirely new editor for Mozilla which appears quite promising but is coming quite slowly and could be several years away.
Thanks to the open source nature of Nvu other developers were able to step in and continue fixing bugs and problems in the software as well as minor feature improvements. Unfortunatly for licensing reasons they had to pick a new name so all new releases are offered under the KompoZer name. KompoZer is still being maintained as a free web editor and for people not looking to use the really advanced features of Dreamweaver I would argue it is possibly the best graphical webpage editor available today. It's fairly simple for novice users to grasp the creation and editing of pages with this tool, though you do still need to have some understanding of how to upload pages and linking structures.
KompoZer is a great tool for use in the classroom precisely because it is free. You can install it without charge on all of the computers in your lab or classroom, students should be able to grasp it fairly quickly and of course students with computers at home can download it and use it for free at home as well. This is a significant benefit for use in education over commercial software such as Dreamweaver. As an added benefit the fact that it operates in a similar manner to Dreamweaver means that if you eventually grow out of it and need some advanced feature in Dreamweaver chances are you'll feel right at home and be able to easily make the transition.
Thursday, October 11, 2007
More on technological literacy and constructivism
As I read the article this week "If I Teach This Way Am I Doing My Job?" by Sprague and Dede I was struck by both the narrow definition of technological literacy which seems to be employed by educational technologists as well as the idealistic view of the constructivist classroom. My first concern about the narrow definition of technology and technological literacy comes up early in the article and is something that the field of technology education has been fighting almost since its inception, that is the belief that technology is mostly about computers, gadgets and electronics. This is certainly not the case.
The Oxford English Dictionary describes technology as being practical or industrial arts and science. Technology is more than "a tool to help students solve problems" it is a veritable force in the world. Clearly technology includes much more than computers and electronics extending to topics such as machinery, transportation, power & energy, hydraulics, biotech, structures, etc. These as well as many other topics which would fall under the banner of technology are encountered on a daily basis and yet understood by comparatively few people. This could be described as technological illiteracy in that is a world increasingly shaped by technology. Therefore the goal of technological literacy should be more than students being able to solve problems using technology, it should include understanding technology as well as solving problems about technology.
I am also somewhat concerned about the idealistic view of the constructivist classroom presented in the two vignettes later in the article. Unfortunately, I feel that the restrictions of teaching in the real world would prevent the idealistic constructivist classroom from working as described in the article. In the real world teachers can have classes where large numbers of students are entirely disinterested in learning, where class size is continually increasing, where standards and curriculum dictate what material must be covered and the length of time it must be covered in and where budgets and efficiency determine what changes can be made. In this hostile environment it is difficult, if not impossible to implement a truly constructivist teaching strategy. Though I agree that constructing ones own knowledge is perhaps the best way to learn it requires the topic to be interesting and engaging to the learner and a lot of freedom for them to explore. Although it may be the best it is not at all efficient. I learn much of the material that I am known to be well versed in (especially my expertise in science and technology) in a constructivist manner seeking out sources on my own and finding connections between topics. While I may end up with a superior understanding compared to someone who has been traditionally taught they probably learned what they do know in a considerably shorter amount of time. When we are constrained by time and efficiency concerns or a predetermined curriculum constructivist learning becomes less successful.
The Oxford English Dictionary describes technology as being practical or industrial arts and science. Technology is more than "a tool to help students solve problems" it is a veritable force in the world. Clearly technology includes much more than computers and electronics extending to topics such as machinery, transportation, power & energy, hydraulics, biotech, structures, etc. These as well as many other topics which would fall under the banner of technology are encountered on a daily basis and yet understood by comparatively few people. This could be described as technological illiteracy in that is a world increasingly shaped by technology. Therefore the goal of technological literacy should be more than students being able to solve problems using technology, it should include understanding technology as well as solving problems about technology.
I am also somewhat concerned about the idealistic view of the constructivist classroom presented in the two vignettes later in the article. Unfortunately, I feel that the restrictions of teaching in the real world would prevent the idealistic constructivist classroom from working as described in the article. In the real world teachers can have classes where large numbers of students are entirely disinterested in learning, where class size is continually increasing, where standards and curriculum dictate what material must be covered and the length of time it must be covered in and where budgets and efficiency determine what changes can be made. In this hostile environment it is difficult, if not impossible to implement a truly constructivist teaching strategy. Though I agree that constructing ones own knowledge is perhaps the best way to learn it requires the topic to be interesting and engaging to the learner and a lot of freedom for them to explore. Although it may be the best it is not at all efficient. I learn much of the material that I am known to be well versed in (especially my expertise in science and technology) in a constructivist manner seeking out sources on my own and finding connections between topics. While I may end up with a superior understanding compared to someone who has been traditionally taught they probably learned what they do know in a considerably shorter amount of time. When we are constrained by time and efficiency concerns or a predetermined curriculum constructivist learning becomes less successful.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)