Let’s start with a philosophical question.  What is the point?  I think that question can be asked of just about anything we are expected to do.  Go to school.  Get a job.  Get married.  Don’t get married.  Have kids.  Get a pet.  Learn an instrument.  Have a drink.  Start a blog!  Well, why?  Why do any of it?

All right, now that all the nihilists have sat back down let me just say that I am not a nihilist.  I believe the overwhelming majority of things in life matter to a certain degree, but some things have a more pertinent point than other things.  You would most likely drive yourself mad very quickly if you tried to treat every detail of your life with the same degree of extreme importance.  I certainly would.  Where I am beginning this blog post is with the question, “How important is formal education?”

I started thinking through this question this week after a few short readings on the subject (here, here, and an excerpt from here).  As a career K12 educator, I certainly had some thoughts on the subject, as well as some Pavlovian defensive reactions.  You see, it’s pretty fashionable, not to mention politically expedient, to blame education for most of the ills in our society.  If that ire were directed at those setting the “education agenda” (mostly politicians) then OK.  In fact, I agree that there is some change needed in top-down direction for public schools.  Unfortunately, the people who get most of the blame are the educators working with students and running schools.

Now let me pause here and say two things.  First, not all teachers are great at what they do.  Everyone has had a bad teacher and they leave a sour taste for a long time.  No one (especially other teachers) wants bad teachers in schools.  That being said, please don’t let one bad teacher spoil your experiences with the other great teachers who cared for you and helped you learn.  That’s like getting a bad waiter and swearing off going out to eat for the rest of your life.  It’s nonsense.  Second, I get why it happens.  It’s easier to pick on someone who either won’t or can’t fight back in the same way they are being attacked.  In schools, we call that being a bully.  It also gets you in trouble.  I suppose that is one of the disconnects schools have with “the real world.”

So let me take that opportunity to segway back into the idea of educational goals.  That’s where I was going originally.  If I were to condense those previously mentioned readings into one sentence, it would be this:  There is a significant gap between what schools are teaching and what students need to be successful adults in our society.  Right now, schools are focused on cramming information into students in an effort to get them to repeat that information back by correctly answering multiple choice questions (at least that’s the perception).  Instead, schools should be focusing on teaching students how to be good thinkers, to solve problems, and to guide them in finding their individual path to personal fulfillment.  I propose that we can think of these two constructs for educational goals as points on a spectrum.  We don’t have to choose one or the other, because there is a fairly massive area in between with plenty of available real estate.

So let’s say that right now our education system is indeed currently too close to the “information acquisition” side of the spectrum (the more skeptical might call this “memorize and monetize” and we need to shift more towards the “motivate to innovate” side (which a different set of skeptics might call “rainbows and unicorns”.  How do we get from where we are to where we’d like to be?  Since this is a real problem there are many thoughts on how to do this.  Here are a couple ideas worth considering and my thoughts on each.

Let’s consider how a school environment would change if we moved from “information acquisition” to “motivate and innovate.”  The first change I think we’d all notice is significantly fewer lectures and PowerPoints.  Notice I didn’t say we’d eliminate lectures and PowerPoints.  There is absolutely still a need for experts to act as experts to the benefit of students who are working on learning.  Don’t agree with that?  Here’s what an expert has to say on the matter.  Teachers have value.  If we attempt to replace teachers with systems and AI we are really doing a disservice to students (sorry Sal, but sites like yours should support the work of teachers, including being used a curriculum, but should not attempt to displace teachers).

So we still need teachers, but we need teachers who are able to help students see the value in what they are learning.  Some see this as making learning fun.  I think sometimes we see stories or videos of kids making their own educational video games and think of that as the “gold standard” of learning.  It’s a valuable approach that can yield cool results.  For full disclosure, I taught and developed curriculum for two separate Video Game Programming courses.  One was more focused on using games as a tool to teach programming concepts while the other attempted to balance an understanding of gameplay concepts alongside basic programming concepts.  The classes were great.  Most students really enjoyed the classes.  There were some in every class that didn’t.

So what happened there?  Students had a fairly high degree of freedom to explore concepts in an elective class they chose to take.  There was always time built in to play with the game design tools.  That was intentional.  Why didn’t all students engage in the course?  Based on my personal interactions with each and every student in the courses I taught, the reason some students really tried and others didn’t is because some cared enough to try and others did not.  Not one single student who did poorly in my class did so because he or she couldn’t grasp the content.  If the student was motivated to get it then the student eventually got it.  Some progressed faster than others, which is what you’d expect, but the difference between learning and not learning was student motivation.

This realization is incredibly important in the discussion of changing educational outcomes for students.  Some (possibly even some authors and articles linked to in this post) see the key to improvements in education occurring as a result of increased use of situated learning and gamification practices.  Both those things are great!  Both can lead to improved motivation and better learning outcomes.  Neither is a “magic bullet” that impacts every student.  We’d like to find that, but we haven’t yet.  The most impactful teaching strategy I’ve ever seen is personal relationships with students, but even that falls short of inspiring some students.  There has to be some movement on the part of the student to want to learn, whether that happens through reading, listening to a lecture, participating in a simulation, or playing a video game.

Be bold with innovative instructional approaches that push students to learn in unique ways.  Online communities, gaming, and project-based learning are just a few of the multitude of instructional practices that move us along the spectrum towards “motivate and innovate.”  Just know that regardless of the fun and engagement you build into a course, the outcomes you want to achieve matter and there very well could be students who simply don’t buy in.  That is, by far and away, the most difficult thing about being a teacher, but you can’t let it define you as a teacher or cause you to lower your expectations to include unmotivated students.  Appreciate the fact the majority of your students bought into the process and continue to look for ways to help your students learn more deeply and demonstrate their learning more creatively.

After watching the Vimeo video Digital Media: New Learners of the 21^st century I thought I would share some of my concerns / comments with you folks.  The first thing I want to say is this is a really novel and amazing idea. It is really nice to see the educational system embrace technology and conforming to this new way of teaching. I think presenting subject matter through the use of games or other forms of media is very unique way of secretly teaching the children at this school.  I would think it surely beats lectures in some aspects. That being said I am worried that this style of teaching is kind of catered to kids that are already “gamers or computer junkies” which is fine, but I worry that this style of teaching is assuming all these kids want to go into a game development or computer science related job.  I worry that they are so young and this curriculum might be too focused on the gaming aspect.  What if gaming is just a hobby and not a passion they want to make a career out of ? Do you think this gaming teaching style is as good as a conventional education ? I say this because I feel like the way conventional schools are setup is all these different opportunities are given to you. This allows you to try them all. As it turns out you might be really great at something you never thought you would be. I am just worried that these kids are being Pidgeon held into a life that they did not choose but was forced on them. Let’s face it they are kids and at that age they really don’t know any better or what they really want.

As a final though, in the video the kids go on to say that they still have conventional classes, however that just have different titles. Also a teacher says that they cover all the material required by the state. My question to you is do you think what they cover is as comprehensive as other conventional schools?

I am a big advocate of a shared responsibility model in a class room setting where individual students and teachers share equal responsibility of the failure and success of the classroom (including individual success/failure of students). I personally think that utilization of all forms of personal technology should be banned from classrooms (my perception takes its genesis from old school of thinking) simply because surfing the web not only distracts individual students but also distracts their neighbors and this distraction propagates like a ripple effect. Following are more reasons why I think personal technology should be banned from classroom:

1. According to a study conducted by microsoft, average attention span has reduced to eight seconds, beating goldfish’s attention span of 9 seconds. If unrestricted use of technology is allowed, then the matters would only become worse. Class room is one realm of the life where people do most of their learning, and learning to have better attention spans can be helpful to students in future.
2. The class room setting is a time for face to face interaction amongst students, usage of technology diminishes this time to almost zero. Additionally, this diminishing social interaction is increasingly generating more anti-social human beings with a skewed perception of social normality.
3. Excessive use of technology has increased mental health related problems. I think the class room can be the one place where students get a “break” from using technology and increase physical (not virtual) social interaction.
4. Using phones/laptops, when a teacher is lecturing, for social media or for other entertainment purposes is extremely disrespectful. Condoning such behaviors on a regular basis creates a perception of normality — which is not in accordance with expectations in the industry. Let me share a personal incident: During my internship in summer 2018, some of my fellow interns were using phones during client meetings. After various failed insinuations, the meeting host, out of frustration, explicitly told the interns to put their phones away as this action was disrespectful. A fellow intern responded to this “order” by saying I can multi-task and continued to use their phone. Following this interns lead, some of the other interns continued using laptops/phones — I was appalled by this behavior and the utter disrespect for the client, the company, and the meeting host (higher up) without any signs of remorse. I think this behavior can be ascribed to normalization of technology use in the classroom setting.

Times are changing, so are teaching techniques and learning methodologies. Consequentially, an absolute ban of technology is not pragmatic in todays “modern” class room. Howbeit, I think that using tools to limit the sites a student can access is a reasonable solution to:

1. The need for students to have access to technology to be successful in a class.
2. Stop students from using social media, so they don’t distract themselves or their neighbors, for the period of class.
3. Encourage student interaction

The article cites Jesse Stommels’ quote: “I don’t think the attention of students is actually something teachers can or should control,” and I couldn’t disagree more. Saying that teachers should not take action to make students better human beings is akin to saying that the doctor should not be controlling the patients prescription. The job of the teacher is to teach students class material, teach them something about life, and help them be a better version of themselves. If students are distracted then how is the teacher supposed to do their job? These children are still learning. This is the time when a person with much more life experience than students should navigate them through right and wrong.

This article, Four Things a Lecture is Good For by Robert Talbert, makes some good, concise points on the topic of traditional lecturing. It should be noted that criticizing the traditional, stand-and-deliver lecture isn’t new. As the article outlines, for decades research repeatedly shows that lecturing does not lead to adequate levels of content retention. In fact, the numbers that have been reported to me over the years all describe that the levels of retention by traditional lecturing are embarrassing low. It would be easy (and possibly lazy) to say that these facts can be summed up and attributed to a few bored and boring lecturers. I used to believe this, but not as much now. I becoming more friendly to the argument that lecturing is overused and is an inferior way of teaching in many circumstances.

Now, with the emergence, or insurgence rather, of online educational sources, traditional, lecture-based education is forced to justify itself. On this matter Tablert says “Resorting to a lecture because I need to ‘cover material’ is just an admission that I didn’t design my course well. If that’s all the lecture is for, put it online so students can at least pause and rewind.”

In spite of the online takeover of education gaining momentum and territory there is still room for the traditional lecture. I agree with the author on this point. He outlines four occasions where lectures are still an optimal content delivery method. Of these the most persuasive to me is “modeling thought processes”. Providing an expert model, especially a role model, through software is very difficult, if not impossible (currently). The presence of an expert human being demonstrating thinking in reality is something that virtual reality cannot yet imitate.

In summary, I believe that education is due for a much needed update steering away from the overused, lecture-based, content delivery method. I also believe, like the author, that lecturing still has its very important place and should remain an important part of the pedagogical arsenal.

https://www.chronicle.com/blognetwork/castingoutnines/2012/02/13/four-things-lecture-is-good-for/

I want to first start by saying “WOW”.  It never seizes to amaze me at how many opinions are polar, regardless of the topic.

As with many things in life there are very few absolutes, and I believe that technology in the classroom falls into that category.  I will attempt to illustrate the discretionary nature of this question with the inclusion and introduction of two considerations. With that said, there are numerous considerations that could be used and these are not intended to be absolute.

First, will be the level of cognitive learning associated with the classroom in question i.e. Memorization, Understanding, and Application defined in the link below.

http://www.indiana.edu/~idtheory/methods/m1d.html

Memorization. This is rote learning. It entails learners encoding facts or information in the form of an association between a stimulus and a response, such as a name, date, event, place or symbol. For example, these are facts: Columbus discovered America in 1492, Pi = 3.1417

Understanding. This is meaningful learning. It entails learners relating a new idea to relevant prior knowledge, such as understanding what a revolutionary war is. The behaviors that indicate that this kind of learning has occurred include comparing and contrasting, making analogies, making inferences, elaborating, and analyzing (as to parts and/or kinds), among others.

Application. This is learning to generalize to new situations, or transfer learning. It entails learners identifying critical commonalities across situations, such as predicting the effects of price increases. The behavior that indicates that this kind of learning has occurred is successfully applying a generality (the critical commonalities) to a diversity of previously unencountered situations.

Second, will relate to the type of education being instructed or pursued in the classroom. This will be generalized in three subtopic areas:

-Public K-12 Education

-Private K-12 Education

-College / Post-secondary education

It can be argued that during the phase of memorization technology is not required or necessary for a student to learn and absorb the information/knowledge that is being delivered. However, the inverse can be equally argued by stating that technology facilitates certain types of rote memorization i.e. digital flash cards. During this phase students are more reliant on an instructor for the delivery and/or explanation of the material.

As the phases progress the reliance on instructor should begin to decrease. This is made evident through the  following quotes from the above source: “It entails learners relating a new idea to relevant prior knowledge”, and “successfully applying a generality (the critical commonalities) to a diversity of previously unencountered situations.” Students in the application and understanding phases must at some point must “disconnect” from the instructor in order to “relate and apply” what is being taught.

Here, as with memorization the last two types of learning can have arguments for and against technology. Each of these arguments would have nuanced characteristics that specifically related to the type and way the course material is/was presented. Therefore, as stated initially, it depends and is a discretionary call. However, the level of authority an instructor is given for the discretionary call should not be blanketed.

Before I begin this section I want to first state, if a students technology is negatively impacting the ability of other students to learn, corrective action should be taken. e.g. three students in front of you are streaming a soccer game. (that has ever happened to me

In public K-12 schools students education and in some cases transportation and food are funded by taxation. The use of technology should be more heavily debated within this context. In many circumstances these students do not have the choice or option for private education and are reliant on the established policies to have a beneficial impact on there education. If students fail to perform to a satisfactory level, a burden is potentially placed on taxpayers to fund another year of schooling, transportation and food. Additionally, as stated by Mr. Glupton during class, “teachers are measured with metrics and the burden is placed on them to get the student where they need to be.” Therefore, if a student fails to perform at least three negative outcomes will persist: 1. The student falls behind 2. The taxpayers must foot the bill, again 3. The teacher is found at fault.

What teachers are not in these scenarios are parents or guardians. Ms. Welzenbach states in, Laptops And Phones In The Classroom: Yea, Nay Or A Third Way? “These devices are worse than distracting, she says. They can connect teens to cyberbullying, hate speech, sexting and other “unhealthy” experiences.” Many of these topics fall into the parental/guardian arena and should not be used as ammunition for a teachers discretionary decision on this topic.

Private K-12 schools have a different dynamic. The students in these settings have parents/guardians or other individuals that are paying for the education of the students. In this setting the benefactor should have some input if not complete authority. In this scenario there is no financial burden to the tax paying population for an error in judgment by the benefactor. Additionally, the teacher should be able to document the recommendation and the associated concerns given to the benefactor in order to provide insulation to external decisions being made outside of the teachers control.

A similar argument can and should be made for institutions at the college or post secondary level.  The students are now placed in either a student/benefactor or a student/beneficiary position. In either case the student should have complete discretionary control over how they see fit to be educated. (Again, as long as it doesn’t interfere with others abilities to learn) If they decide to not pay attention, and shop online, text/email a friend it is their prerogative.

In most cases these students will have to compete in the open market to earn a living. Their traits, qualities and education are just some of the components that will feed into this equation. There many arguments or examples that can be made which entertain the outlying examples of students who are atypical. There are those who are brilliant and never needed formal education to be successful (Steve Jobs, J.K Rowling, Steven Speilberg) Then there are those who just needed a little push by an educator to ignite a spark or a passion within them. But a majority will fall somewhere in middle, and their cumulative decisions and experiences will impact where their life takes them.

At some point the “umbilical cord” needs to be cut and students need to take control and responsibility for themselves. In my opinion, day one at a your first job is too late to figure out how to effectively navigate technology and the distractions it can bring. Regardless, at this level it is not an educators responsibility to police their students. Instead, the focus should be on doing the most good possible and ensuring that the environment does handicap those who want to learn.

In summation, there are many nuanced scenarios, circumstances and factors that affect this discussion. I do not believe that there is a right or a wrong answer which can be applicable in all settings. The intent was to highlighted two possible factors that impact this decision, with the hope to illustrate the sheer dynamics.

The traditional classroom teaching approach is something that has been there for a long time. Listening to someone delivering a lecture and taking notes is the common way of education we have received. But it is changing slowly and if it is for the good or bad is a subjective question. We are shifting to the new active learning approach or better known as a learning-centered approach where various digital learning techniques in a learning environment are used. I personally feel both the techniques have merits.

Traditional lecturing approach is good for hands-on learning from the expert on that topic or subject. But taking notes by hands during lectures is not an effective way of learning. One tends to focus more on writing rather than learning and understanding new information. But then the new classroom teaching through presentations and fill in the blanks in the notes is a solution for that. If the teacher is able to deliver an interesting lecture without boring you, it is a good method of learning. But the truth is there is not enough practical, experiential or active learning. Classroom lecturing is a must for learning a basic set of information and worldly knowledge but other skills necessary to survive in this world like communication, teamwork, problem-solving, learning through competing etc. are missing.

Digital learning is a new culture in which technology is used as a medium for learning. Human beings learn the most when they are faced with a problem they have never seen before and are eager to solve. Computer games are one of the ways for effective problem-solving, teamwork and learning. Quest to Learn School  is an initiative in this direction. The curriculum involves game-based learning along with the traditional lecture-based learning. Developing individual games allow students to succeed by failing and trying on their own. It also allows them to think creatively and use their imagination  which we do not generally learn in a lecture-based approach

Students need an environment in which they can learn and experiment. A mix of traditional lecture learning, game-based active learning, communication through dialogues and discussion is the best way forward in my way. The world is changing and we need to accommodate to changes as well. Which approach do you like more? Feel free to share any experiences or thoughts.