See previous post for background (click here)

The first statement that Christensen et al  (in Disrupting Class) make is that children learn in different ways. They cite Howard Gardner’s Multiple Intelligences theory as evidence that children have different modes of learning. Furthermore, they make the jump to education stating that the current system uses a standardized, one-size-fits-all approach to instruction that does not adequately serve different student needs. All of these are compelling arguments, which lead the authors to suggest a “modular” approach using technology, where students can get just-in-time, individualized instruction that cater to their multiple intelligences.

While I am not an educational, or cognitive psychologist by training I have a couple of initial critiques of the authors here. If I am mistaken in any of these points, please comment and point me to any resources that may help my own learning. My critiques in order:

1. I do not believe there is no solid evidence that multiple intelligences exist. There is a great theory, posited by Howard Gardner, which has gained much popularity in Education because it seems to make perfect sense. There are also numerous research articles that suggest mulitple intelligences are at play in children’s learning. However, I have yet to come across any studies that definitively prove ML.
2. So do children learn differently? It sure does seem like they do huh? However, I personally would stop short of calling it multiple intelligence. A kid who excels at sports is a kinestetic learner but not a visual learner? I find that hard to believe. Perhaps the kid who is a good football player has a unique body structure that allows him to run faster than others, and perhaps through dedicating more time to football (since he has natural physical gifts) he has trained his brain to master football concepts. However, that does not mean an athlete who is less naturally gifted cannot excel.
3. This is not multiple intelligences to me… Perhaps human beings have a certain balance of physical and mental capabilities. Some people may pick up running the 100m faster than reading a book… but if that same person invested enough time in reading a book, I’m sure they could (even if it took a bit longer than a good reader). What I’m suggesting is that yes, “children learn differently”, but all children (who are within a range of normal needs) could adequately learn something given enough time for their abilities to develop. Using this framework, instead of multiple intelligences, calls for very different uses of technology.
4. The authors of Disrupting Class suggest that online learning, and social media, have the potential to help children who learn differently. Using a ML theory, there are a couple of problems. How would you design online resources for a kid who is a “physical learner”? How about a kid who is “socially smart”, what would you design to help each of these children learn how to plot data points in a chart? If we start to think concretely about what we’d design online, using ML theory, I’m hard pressed to see any usefulness of the theory.
5. Instead if we suggest that children learn at a different pace, and some students need multiple perspectives on a concept in order to learn it, then online resources play a VITAL role. Perhaps one student could read a wikipedia entry on photosynthesis and understand it completely.  Perhaps another student needs to read the wikipedia entry, see a video on YouTube, and ask students on a Facebook group to explain it in their own words — before finally having that ah-ha moment. This process makes more sense to me, and using technology and social media to create different KINDS of educational resources would help different children learn in different “ways” and time-tables.

Thoughts?

A book that has received a lot of hype lately is Disrupting Class by Clayton Christensen and others. I found the book to be extremely interesting, as the authors predict that online learning will expand to encompass 50% of the courses taught in K-12 education by 2019, and that social media (like Web 2.0 applications) will evolve to allow students to teach each other - disrupting the traditional models of school, teaching, and education.

While these are bold claims, some of their theories have merit. I’ll list them here today, and offer my own critiques in subsequent posts. The authors suggest 5 major points of discussion:

1. Children learn in different ways, as evidence by Howard Gardner’s work in multiple intelligences.
2. Disruptive innovations gain a foothold and revolutionize a market because they target a niche audience who normally could not consume a good.
3. Online learning is a disruptive technology because it often targets students with special needs. For example, students take online courses when their own schools do no offer a course (i.e. AP classes). Or students enroll in cyber charter schools because they have special needs: learning needs, behavioral needs, parents who want to have more involvement in their children’s learning, life situations such as competitive sports players etc. etc. These unique student populations are “non-consumers” because the alternative for them is a really inferior educational experience, or no education.
4. Computers in schools are not disruptive technology because they have been utilized to marginally “improve” an existing education structure. Larry Cuban has done amazing work documenting how computers are merely used as workbooks, supplemental activities, or replacements for things teachers already do. As a result computers add tremendous cost without adding much value in terms of educational benefit.
5. Computers “can” be a disruptive innovation, when used to create new learning situations. For example, social media platforms (i.e. Youtube, Facebook, eBay and infinite others popping up everyday) are disruptive innovations. Why? Because they open up new avenues for non-consumers. Before YouTube and home-video editing software, it was difficult for the normal joe schmoe to create and publish video. Now the barriers have been reduced, as non-consumers can more easily participate in media creation. Social media has similar potential for education. For instance, imagine students creating ways to teach each other some difficult topic, and sharing it on a web-based platform. The avenues for learning are increased, student no longer only need to rely on their immediate teacher or parent for learning assistance.

I came across iCue from NBC which bills itself as an interactive learning environment built around video from the NBC archives, games, and discussion for people to learn about politics and the coming election. What a great idea, and I wonder if this kind of format would lend itself to “fun” learning opportunities in other subjects… then again, the cost and expertise needed to develop high quality educational video might hinder widespread development of these kinds of sites… on the other hand, maybe people can leverage web 2.0 tools like youtube to invite students who know a subject to develop their own videos and then organize them into a learning site…. is it possible? http://www.icue.com/

I am intrigued by the thought of participating in the K12 online conference and submitting a proposal. As an education researcher interested in ed-tech, I think I’d have the most to contribute to Week 2 (”Prove It”). But, as I think about what I could propose as a presentation, I realize that (1) there is very little to no research done particularly on the the learning effects of Web 2.0 tools in particular, most of the research has been on multimedia or direct instructional tools, then (2) the questions posed in the Call for Proposals are all very traditionally psychology focused questions. There are plenty of debates currently about the correct instructional strategies for the classroom… would it be helpful to the ed-tech community for a PhD grad student to present the findings that he has learned through his classes, even though he hasn’t done the research himself? Or would additional questions about broader issues related to Web 2.0 also be relevant?

For example, I am particularly interested in studying students’ social networks and social capital and its effects on student success… My hunch is that social tools may influence and change students’ networks, but we still need to understand how that might influence learning in the classroom using Web 2.0 tools. Again, the research hasn’t been done yet! But how helpful would it be if I did a presentation framing how we could think about student social networks from a dual research and practice perspective?

If anyone reads this that is also interested in the K12 online conference, maybe you can help me with these thoughts.

I’ve been playing with a rather simple, but interesting idea in my head, when it comes to online schools in K-12 public education. Many of the controversies in states implementing online charter schools are due to a fundamental misalignment between the policies and organizations of the established school system, with the new possibilities of online schools. I think the key for anyone interested in seeing online options for schooling, or even using the Web for “outside the box” schooling models (e.g. here), is understanding how this can and cannot happen within the current edu policy framework can be helpful. More after the jump.

There are many places of alignment and misalignment. For me, I’ve been thinking about the idea in terms of “what does the Internet enable” and “what does our public education system enable”. Some examples:

1. Online schools hypothetically enable students to enroll from any geographic area. But most education systems are set up where students must attend school within their own geographic district. Open enrollment, and school choice programs such as that in Minnesota tend to align with allowing students to enroll across boundaries. What about enrolling between states?! Or countries?!
2. Online learning can enable students to learn at their own pace. But most education systems are designed with a set calendar, where students are supposed to “learn” everything they are supposed to in a set number of days. Maybe we should consider options like a year-round calendar and promoting students based on credits earned rather than seat time.
3. Online learning is quite individualized and caters to each student. But most education systems are geared towards very rudimentary standardized tests that test students based on grade (aka seat time) versus whether or not students have actually been exposed to all material. Could we monitor and test students based on what credits they have completed instead of a single test for all?
4. Online schooling often redefines the role of teachers, parents, and other adults. But most education systems (including teacher unions) get queasy about new definitions of the “teacher”. Many conflicts arise because folks are worried about online teachers who don’t work set schedules, who don’t spend their time in a physical classroom, who email and call their students every day, who find individualized learning opportunities for the students they mentor, who are able to successfully cater to more students through the use of technology etc. etc. etc. Maybe we need to rethink and redesign teacher education and teacher policy to take into account alternative models of education.

I stumbled across this site (via my Firefox StumbleUpon extension). It’s an interesting graphic simulation of carbon emissions by country, across the world.

http://www.breathingearth.net/

So I am currently working on a study doing some comparative case studies of cyber charter schools. Why cyber charters? Well they are interesting cases to me for several reasons. (1) They are online schools that serve K-12 students, when most of our distance learning discussions center on higher education. (2) They are charter schools, so they have their own history of policy and controversy. (3) The existence or extinction of cyber charters have important implications for issues of school choice, home-schooling, the limitations of how our public education system is currently set up, and media-based schooling. (4) They are relatively new and haven’t been studied much (which is good for a budding academic like myself).

I’ll look forward to sharing my findings and thoughts as the project progresses. But for now I want to point out that virtual, online, or cyber schools (whatever you want to call them) are concrete examples of a disruptive technology. The mere fact that using the Internet to deliver public schooling is an option now, throws many of our assumptions about education into flux as well as the policies, regulations, and funding mechanisms that are designed for brick-and-mortar schools.

The fight is happening as we speak… Check out the recent ruling in Wisconsin. Links here and here.

The teachers union sued to close down Wisconsin’s virtual academies. And for now, they have won as the courts ruled to stop sending funds to those schools. What is the issue here? Well online schools pose several problems that come into play:

• Who is responsible for paying for the education? An online school can hypothetically enroll students from anywhere. But how do those public funds (which normally get sent to a student’s resident school district) get transferred to the cyber school? Many districts get angry when they lose student funds for their kids who enroll in an online school.
• What about the quality of education? Most of the popular arguments that come from opponents center around quality of education. Certified teachers? The cyber charters I’ve spoken to hire certified teachers. Do children get the same quality schooling online versus a physically live teacher? Why wouldn’t they? The modalities of learning may be different (more text, more multimedia, more self directed) but who says physically sitting in a classroom is somehow a better experience? The cyber schools I’ve looked at so far have been able to provide a more intimate educational experience for their students, with highly independent attention… all because the use of technology.
• A thorny issue for teachers unions is the possibility that cyber schools can be more efficient with their money. Cyber charters can use curriculum and Internet based multimedia to handle basic instruction and assessments. Teachers can then play a more advisor, guidance, and coaching role. They can provide individual plans for each student, check in on each of their students efficiently via email, telephone, or other means, and make sure each student is progressing. On top of that, we might blow up the entire idea of “class size”. A teacher in a physical classroom might be overwhelmed with 30 students in a class. But the new job description of a cyber school teacher might enable them to easily handle a case-load of 30 students who they mentor, or even more! The implications are that cyber charters may spend their money in other areas, other than teachers… and I bet that is at the core of the teachers union in Wisconsin trying to kill cyber schools in their state.

I read a great little post by David Buckingham (click here) today about the role of digital media in schools. The post brings to bear many of the popular arguments made in the media and learning debate. I thought I’d share some of my thoughts:

1. What we know: Digital media does not improve (or negatively impact) students’ learning. In fact most good studies show no significant differences in student learning from using media or traditional classrooms. Mr. Buckingham writes about those who champion the use of media in learning that, “They see the more playful, democratic forms of learning offered by games or online communities as infinitely preferable to the traditional, authoritarian approach of schools.” If we’re concerned about how well students learn, then this is a weak argument. (EDIT: see some good articles about media and learning, and pedagogy below)
2. What I think: I think the above quote sheds light on how digital media can enhance our qualitative EXPERIENCE of learning. Maybe using media may be more engaging, fun, and enjoyable. These are important aspects of learning, but if using digital media is separated from solid pedagogy (what many pundits often call boring, traditional teaching practices) it becomes meaningless.
3. Mr. Buckingham makes a great point that schools are not “out”. In fact school is deeply ingrained into the social, cultural, and economic flows of our society. It will take a full on revolution and upheaval of many of our (humankind) cultural norms to replace school with playing games on the Internet.

In all, the time is ripe right now for new thinkers to clearly define the role of digital media in schools. Throw away the weak arguments. Media does not improve learning. Games are not superior ways to learn than some traditional pedagogies like role modeling or plain showing someone how to do something. Media is not inherently more “democratic” (what does that term mean anyway), but particular uses of it may open up opportunities for students to interact with other people. Economic arguments about having “digital skills” are also weak. The kindergarten students of today will need far different digital skills when they graduate from college than we do now… so why do we need to TEACH them how to use the Internet or blog? Many will likely learn and adapt on their own.

Digital media is clearly an innovative and engaging tool. However, justifying its use in schools will require far more clear and coherent arguments than are currently discussed. Does anyone have any ideas?

EDIT: Some articles to read.

Bernard, R. M., Abrami, P. C., Lou, Y., Borokhovski, E., Wade, A., Wozney, L., Wallet, P. A., Fiset, M., & Huang, B. (2004). How does distance education compare with classroom instruction? A meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Review of Educational Research, 74(3), 379-439.

Clark, R. E. (1983). Reconsidering research on learning from media. Review of Educational Research, 53(4), 445-459.

Kozma, R. B. (1994). Will media influence learning? Reframing the debate. Educational Technology, Research, and Development, 42(2), 7-19.

Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J, & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75-86.

Using the Nintendo Wiimote to create your own interactive whiteboards.

http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/clips/use-a-wiimote-to-make-whiteboards-out-of-anything-332039.php

Ok, so in the previous post I critiqued the problem of thinking about networks and technology in general terms. Here is an example of thinking about networks in a more focused, and I think more helpful way. Check out this link:

http://www.reed.com/Papers/GFN/reedslaw.html

In this paper, Mr. Reed outlines three ways that networks can grow (in the context of commercial services).

First, some services grow linearly based on the number of users who subscribe or join. An example of this is a cable television network/channel. If you have the best content in an area like the Food Network, your viewer base grows one by one. In education, a traditional textbook or a website whose content is written by one entity is an example.
Second is Metcalf’s Law, which grows essentially by the square of the # of users (N^2). Craigslist is a good example, which is a service that connects peers. The value of craigslist increases quickly based on how many people contribute and use it. But the value involves a one-to-one transaction. In education, wiki-based curriculum sharing where different educators can contribute is an example. The recent Free-Reading project is an example. Different folks contribute to the value, but the value is experienced by individual teachers who choose to use the curriculum.

Reed argues that the third kind of network growth is exponential (2^N) and most powerful. This kind of service connects different groups and entities. An exponential growth example is eBay. eBay’s main service is to provide a platform that offers connections to MANY. One auction can involve many bidders to drive up value. The key point in this area is that the value of the good (in eBay’s case, $$$) increases exponentially as more members get involved. Many people can post to a curriculum wiki, but the value of an item on the wiki does not necessarily increase exponentially to any individual. Many people can bid on an auction and the value of that item goes up, and in aggregate the value of all the items on eBay increases exponentially as more people bid on eBay.

What would an example be for an education context? I think a platform that connects the various constituents (groups) of public education for a common goal would be a good possibility. An example platform would:

1. Allow individual educators to share lesson plans/curriculum in one site, and to attach their own assignments/assessments to those lessons
2. Allow district level individuals connect those lesson plans to the academic standards that teachers/students need to meet
3. Allow individuals to rate lesson plans connected to the standards, on how well they are designed to meet the standard - some sort of communal verification system
4. Allow folks to track and assess student progress on those lesson plans connected to standards
5. Allow standardized test makers to create test questions connected to the lesson plans connected to the state standards
6. Allow legislators and policymakers to see that students are meeting standards by seeing students’ progress on each lesson plan connected to standards connected to assessments

The platform could be modular to allow for evolution… the simple point is that such a platform increases the value of a lesson plan as different people contribute to it. The lesson plan is proven to align with an academic standard, has community-approved assessments attached to it, has standardized test questions that are designed from the teacher lesson plans, and allows stakeholders to track whether students are meeting the standards in a real-time manner.

The platform ALIGNS in meaningful ways individual classroom practice to the wider system of accountability, allows different groups to contribute to the value of a curriculum, and thus increases the value of the system expontentially.

Thoughts?

I came across this post from Weblogg-ed today, and spurred some thinking I’ve been doing about “networks”. There has been a lot of punditry these days where various folks tout the rise of networks and the power of technologies which connect people. The intuitive thought is that the Internet, mobile communications, and applications like Facebook etc etc etc create networks of people in ways that we’ve never seen before. I think this point is true, but not as provocative as some would make it seem. Here are some of my quick thoughts on social networks:

1. Social networks have always existed since the dawn of community. In the past our social networks might have been drawn from our village or family unit. The difference is now with the Facebooks in the world, we can “potentially” expand our network with a wider net.
2. Aside from “potentially” connecting people ( note I say potentially because I’d argue that the technology itself is not the causal reason why people choose to connect with someone), or increasing the speed of communication, how is this world REALLY changing all that much? We are changing but it’s not the total chaos many of pundits claim.
3. Is the network beating the brains out of hierarchy? No Way! Maybe in small instances, and anecdotes, we can say technology affords someone the opportunity to circumvent an authority figure. But we as human beings still order things hierarchically, and we still operate under a broader hierarchical social schema.

Let’s not see “networks” as a panacea to whatever we want to “fix”. Social networks have always existed. The more interesting question is to think about how communication technologies change the KINDS of networks we maintain. Much recent research suggests that we have strong and weak ties in our social networks. While using a Facebook allows one to make more weak links to other folks, it does little to affect our strong relationships with folks. What does this say about the potential for collective action? The potential for some random person in your Facebook friends list of doing you a favor or helping you out? These questions are still rooted in understanding our social and individual reasons for living, not some “new” network form.