Three reasons ed researchers should create digitally

I have a large digital footprint with hundreds of blog posts and video series with over 100,000 views. In addition I put everything I publish online without pay walls the second I am allowed to. I have profiles on Academia.com, LinkedIn, Google Scholar and Researchgate. If you are an educational researcher you are most likely to have less of an online  presence. Many researchers do not have any. Here are three reasons to have a meaningful online presence:

1. You gain readership. Let's face it, most professionals and amateurs start learning about any topic using a simple google search. If you want to find your audience and your audience to find you, you MUST be online where they can find you. Once they find you (through a piece you wrote, a blog post etc.), they can follow up on anything else you published on that or any other topics. They might even register to follow any updates you make. This is a great way to connect and have an impact. Because:
2. Educational research is highly contextualized. As a result it has limited shelf life. That means that you need to reach your audience quickly. In a few decades (or even less) contexts changes enough to render many of our conclusion invalid. If no one consumes (read, watch, listen) to ideas, and results now they may be obsolete by the time people find them. Which brings me to my last point:
3. We need to talk to a wide constituency. It includes students, teachers, administrators, policy makes and the public. Writing for a wide audience is much more effective through digital channels that give everyone free immediate access to research findings and thinking.

Are We Ready for Cyborg Ed?

Knee Replacement Vimeo

 I have been recovering from ACL surgery in the last two weeks. As I move (with difficulty) about, many passers-by notice my condition and share their own experiences. As a result, I am much more aware of the number of people who have had knee replacement surgery. The anecdotal information is informative but I was looking for a sense of the data on a US wide perspectives. Over a million operations of knee and hip replacements are conducted annually according to the CDC. If I add pacemakers, stents, and even selective plastic surgery the trend is clear. We are becoming what science fiction used to call cyborgs, a combination of man and machine. It improves our quality of life and increases our life expectancy.

Prosthesis Legs

I believe that mobile technology in the form of phones and tablets is very similar. We always have it with us and we communicate with it constantly. In fact, we have come to rely on digital tools as a way to store information (phone numbers, email addresses, calendar etc) and provide access to information that in the past needed to be looked up laboriously or just memorized. The fact is that we are becoming cyborgs not just in limbs but in our mind as well. I know some lament this development, hey I am not completely sure I like it at times. But, like it or not, it is happening. The question is, what does it mean and are we ready for it?

In the book we are currently writing, called Mind, Models, and Mentors, my colleagues (Brooks and Sayood) and I had a long discussion about the way the internet changes education. If we are truly becoming cyborgs then education has to adjust. The key is moving away from knowledge accumulation and memorization to problem-solving and searching.

"While memory remains important, it is clear that technologies (language, writing system, printing press, Internet) change the demands on human memory. What was essential a thousand years ago in order to discuss a text effectively (memory of the whole text) is potentially less critical now when we can easily refer back to texts in paper or digitally. This does not mean that students are learning (memorizing) less; instead it means that they need to memorize a different subset of knowledge linked to more complex operations and procedures." (excerpt from Brooks, Sayood, and Trainin, 2016)

I do not believe that there should be no content knowledge. The most needed tasks and information should be available in long-term memory and immediately accessible. The rest... should be accessed through search. This change is guided by three interlocking facts:
1. We have devices that allow us to be constantly connected. They are fast and comprehensive.
2. Modern knowledge is too extensive for anyone to know it all in detail.
3. Knowledge is developing and updating at increasing speeds. It makes what your Dr. learned in med school 10 years ago is now potentially obsolete or even dangerous.

As a result, the skills that our students need are the skills of searching and evaluating the quality of information available, problem-solving and self-regulation of our memory to make sure that we remember is accurate and still relevant.

The term cyborg has always been a negative one. Reality around us shows that we are becoming cyborgs, mechanically, and cognitively. This is our evolution and we must make sure that we adjust our schools to fit reality.

Are Devices Eating your Students Brains?

Children's Games, 1560, Pieter Bruegel the Elder

Kristen Bailey recently shared this article:
Screentime Is Making Kids Moody, Crazy, and Lazy. Penned by Victoria Dunckley for Psychology Today the article discusses the evils of screen time. A moment of parental panic ensues as author attempt to sell her book through over-generalizations and fear. No parent wants her kids to be moody, crazy nor lazy.

Dr. Dunckley's work has a basis in fact, what concerns me is the overreaching sweeping statements. Screentime Is Making Kids Moody, Crazy and Lazy is such a better title than say: "Parents and kids need to be reasonable about screen time especially in the evenings". OR "Moderate balanced use of screen time can be a meaningful part of a healthy childhood.

The dire warning in Psychology Today is especially challenging given other stories about screen time and video games from the same publication. For example:

Cognitive Benefits of Playing Video Games by Peter Gray

7 Reasons to Play Video Games by Ryan Anderson

Video Gaming Can Increase Brain Size and Connectivity by Christopher Bergland

Dunckley's work emerges from reverse engineering of causes in cases she sees in her practice as a Psychiatrist.This kind of work excludes any ability to see normally behaving children and teens who have access to screen time. And, as I pointed out before, explosive titles sell books- because they prey on our base emotions, in this case, fear, combined with the tradition of screen bashing in the US. 

So, what should we as teachers do? Traditionally, we stay on the safe side, if we are not sure if something is dangerous we stay away from it. The problem with that approach is that it ignores the cost and risk in not engaging. In the case of screen time, the cost is that some students will emerge into the world of college and work without a solid footing in how to engage with digital technologies effectively. Without a reasonable capacity using digital technology students are at a disadvantage as citizens, workers, and consumers. I argue that we cannot afford to just turn it all off.

 what we should do is consider a few approaches:

1. Put reasonable limits around screen time. Devices are alluring, once they are in front of us it is hard to resist the urge to interact. As a result teachers and parents must establish clear rules about when device use is reasonable. In my class I ask my students to turn off sound notification, ring and dings of all kinds. In addition, there are times and activities in which devices are expected to be off. To prevent problems I often ask students to turn their devices upside down on the table or close the screen down.
2. Know your students/ children. Some students are more susceptible to the effects of screen time. As you use devices in your classroom, you will learn what the limitations of each student and design individual plans.
3. Model appropriate device hygiene. Students emulate our behavior. We need to model device hygiene by using similar guidelines to the ones we want kids to follow. If we check our device every minute or so it will be hard to expect our students to behave differently. For example, I discuss my strategy of leaving my phone in my office to allow me to teach without any interruptions. This kind of a metacognitive model (or think aloud) can help students reach self-regulation (#5).
4. Consider the feedback time. Different uses of devices create different feedback cycles. Quick feedback is very motivating but can desensitize students to stimuli. The trick is to include different kinds of feedback systems that do not over rely on quick feedback. For example, video games are often mentioned because of the immediate feedback and reward system. Some games, however, are not reliant on such a reward system- for example Minecraft.
5. Teach self-regulation. Self-regulation is the ability to manage behavior with minimal outside intervention. It limits disruptive behavior and impulsivity and makes sure that we think before we react. Devices make self-regulation harder- hence the need to teach it through modeling, practice, and feedback.

In short, I claim that the digital environment around us can be problematic BUT it does not follow that kids will be Moody, Crazy and Lazy. Instead, I argue that with thoughtful application students can learn to use devices to enhance their learning so they can be full citizens of the world.

The Digital Writing Gap or Let's all switch to Pencil

Photo by mpclemens CC

The 2012 NAEP look at student achievement composing on computers were published recently (December, 2015). The results are not surprising but crucial for our next step.

The key finding is straightforward:
" While fourth-graders had similar overall average scores on the 2012 NAEP computer-based writing assessment and on a paper-based pilot writing assessment administered in 2010, an analysis of 15 writing tasks common to both assessments revealed a different story.  The average score of high-performing fourth-graders was higher on the computer than on paper, whereas low- performing students did not appear to benefit from using the computer.  This finding suggests that low-performing fourth-graders did not fully demonstrate their writing ability on the computer in the 2012 NAEP computer-based pilot writing assessment, and that the use of the computer may have widened the writing achievement gap."
The growing gap is scary stuff. The results mirror the work by Don Leu that found similar effects with reading digitally. One response can be, so let's just assess kids without technology. The logic is that is technology in assessment widens the achievement gap then we should just go back to pencil and reduce the gap. Switching to pencil, however, is a short-sighted response. Assessment strived to approximate real world knowledge and skill. Writing in our world is done on devices more than any other way. One might argue about the value of note taking by hand, but the composition of personal, public, and professional communication is done electronically. Keeping the assessment to pen and paper would hide the much bigger gap that exists and divert us away from the main challenge- early access to digital technology for all children.
My claim here is that the language of the report makes it seem like the method is the culprit- "the use of the computer may have widened the achievement gap" I would argue it just exposed it.

I hear teachers and administrators worry that the tools embedded in the software/ internet provide "cheats". Children will use editing, dictionary, and spelling tools in a way that would reduce their learning.
This, however, is what the study found:
"In the computer-based pilot assessment, students’ actions on the computer were captured and analyzed for the lowest performing 20 percent of students, the highest performing 20 percent of students, and the middle-performing 60 percent of students. Compared to the middle- and high-performing students, a higher percentage of low-performing students:

• used key presses less frequently;
• did not use the spellcheck function;
• did not accept any automated spelling corrections; and
• used the backspace key less frequently to edit their work.

Overall, students who accepted spelling corrections and used the backspace key more often were also likely to write longer responses. "

Less capable students seem to be using tools less, partially explaining their lower achievement. Our problem is not that the tools are a crutch for low achievers, it is that they do not use them enough.

It is about access:

"The 2012 fourth-grade writing data indicate that students with access to the Internet at home were more likely than those without access to:

• write longer responses;
• use the spellcheck tool more often;
• use the thesaurus tool more often; and
• use bold and italics for emphasis more often. "

And who doesn't have access?

"The percentage of fourth-graders without access to the Internet at home was higher for Black students, Hispanic students, students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch, English language learners, and students with a disability."

To solve this problem of wider gaps in the information age, we must first provide constant access to tools- not an occasional one but habit forming access. Then we must teach digital strategies for using these tools for all students NOT just those who we deem ready.

How to Talk to Parents about Tech?

Tech EDGE Parent Meeting in China Jan 2015

When we started using iPads in the Reading Center, we added a session about technology to our orientation evening. As the room filled with parents, I was sensing apprehension. It was the early days of iPads, and I was not sure how parents will react. I briefly explained why and how we were using the iPads with striving readers and writers. One father rose up to express concern. "I am not sending my daughter here to play video games; I am sending her here so she can become a better reader." He continued to explain that he thought his daughter needed something more traditional at this time.

Digital Literacy with Parents Lincoln NE 2015

Not surprisingly we hear similar concerns wherever we work with parents. As a parent to four boys, I understand the instinct to protect your children. When I visited with parents in China, we heard the same concerns. I believe that it is important to listen to parent concerns and help them weigh the benefits and risks using a concrete understanding of what we as teachers do to protect students and teach them.
Parent concerns are usually:

1. "My child is not safe online." Parents are afraid that their children will not be safe online. They are concerned with inappropriate material (photos, text, video), cyberbullying, and predators. These concerns are fed by media reports about the dangers of the internet. Most of these events are extremely rare, but we need to address parental concerns respectfully and honestly.

2. "I don't want my kids information out there." Parents are often concerned with student products, pictures, and information that is shared online. Some do not like the idea of different organizations and companies collecting information about their children. There is also the fear that information shared now can be used later to harm their children.

3. "They have enough video games at home; school is for learning." Parents often view technology as a medium for games that have minimal educational value. They often see it as a way for the teacher to avoid work. The real work of school involves seriousness and effort working on paper. This belief stems from their own school experiences as well as their experience with their children during leisure time.

4. "It is not good for them; they sit too long as it is." Years of research and public discourse on screen-time, obesity, and in some places eyesight have made parents wary of and even guilty about device use. They view digital time as too sedentary and taxing and are concerned (justly) that if their children are constantly on devices they are not moving and socializing enough.

There are a few ways to help parents think about their concerns and understand what we do to protect all of our students. Meet with parents early on to have this conversation and provide the information in a few ways. The best is still face to face meetings.

1. Explain all regulations and protections your district has in place. Most districts have a set of rules about the use of technology in place, make them known.

2. Share your Digital citizenship curriculum and highlight the importance of learning to stay safe and healthy in a world that is increasingly becoming digital. The focus on responsibility and good decision making are what parents want for their kids.

3. Talk about the benefits of using technology. It is easier to consider risks if there is a clear upside. I find that parents are always more willing to have the conversation when they realize that there are excellent learning opportunities for their children in and out of school. It is great to show parents some fantastic tools and student products.

4. Provide opportunities for parents to learn about ways they can use devices with their children to benefit learning. Opportunities can be in meetings but also through monthly app recommendations sharing websites (e.g. Commonsense Media).

Four Ways to Start Integrating Technology in your Class Tomorrow

(Almost) Thirty years ago I jumped out of an airplane. It was after about a week of practice, and I knew I wasn't ready. Our guide disagreed, "you will never be ready until you have done it". I found her logic faulty but got on the airplane. When the doors opened, I was sure I was not ready. I advanced with the rest and one by one we all jumped/ were pushed out. Six years later I was driving our car to the hospital with my wife who was experiencing contractions. "I am not sure I am ready" I tried to say. She just looked at me glaringly.

We all have to start somewhere. We all have to take a leap. Like parachuting, it is often scary and full of unknowns, but it is also exciting and exhilarating. In technology integration, it is also like labor, we cannot undo the way technology has permeated our lives.

As educators, we must all take the plunge so here are three practical ways to start:

1. Plan a short formative assessment with technology. Build a quiz, group race, or a Q & A with technology. I prefer Socrative because it allows open-ended questions and works across platforms. Start with two warm-up questions that are easy to make sure everyone understands the technology and then have about 6 -8 harder questions. You can also use websites like Quizizz or Kahoot- the advantage is the high number of shared assessments that you can search. Even if your students do not have devices, you can use a system like Plickers to get a similar result. Formative digital assessment is a short but useful jump into tech that engages students and produces quick results.

2. Have students introduce themselves or a topic using a simple presentation. You can use HaikuDeck Google slides, or even a single pic found online. Keep it short and simple 1-3 slides for each group or student.

3. Assign a digital product replacing a written one. The idea is not to add to the workload, vary it and allow students to use a tool and another way to express themselves. The key is to enhance productivity.

The idea is to add engagement without adding too much to our workload. We have to jump sometime, or someone will push us. Just start doing something.

Starting a new year

My students showed up to class. 

Smiling, 

energetic, 

purposeful. 

Most with bags full of stuff. Less than third had devices (other than phones) out. Ready to learn, even this generation is not digital first, most are composing on paper first. I wonder if this is a permanent difference or whether with devices early in schooling? Is it going to disappear, like cursive or shorthand? I am digital first but is there a way to enable both technologies in our classrooms? Is it wise?

A few days later they are here with devices creating, sharing and using a fantastic array of apps. They are still taking notes on paper. The variety of media is empowering. A new semester is off to a good start.

It is about Play- Digital and otherwise

I think that most early childhood experts in the last few years have been both amazed and annoyed at the "discovery" of the importance of play to all humans but especially young ones. Play it turns out, is important, maybe paramount, in developing inquiring minds, creative minds that will be flexible enough to deal with the constantly shifting environment kids seem to be growing in. But then again, we've actually known that for a long time.

Since it is summer I have been watching my younger kids at play with friends in and out of the house in a constant movement and social realignment that seems to characterize semi-supervised activities in the summer.

As you can imagine our house has quite a few devices in it for digital creation and consumption. My kids (and their friends when they come) have access to three iPads, PlayStation, three TV's, a Wii, and a laptop computer. As I have shared in the past we do have some rules about digital use. While it is summer we still have strict start and end time, although during the day they have a lot more access to devices.

What I have observed is that kids who grew up digital are constantly shifting between digital and nondigital play activities. They start the morning watching video on YouTube and Netflix a passive waking up activity. As soon as others join in they go outside and play. Yesterday after two days of planning they created a Streetside Sandwiches stand at the corner- an enhanced lemonade stand that they put all on their own including making food items, pricing, choosing location and printing out the menu.

After 4 hours of restauranteurship and a very messy kitchen they all poured back into the house, settled on the couch and played a cooperative game of Minecraft, enhancing the elaborate world they have created together bit by bit over the last few weeks. So what is my point? Well, I have two of them.

First, kids growing up digital have porous boundaries to distinguish different kinds of play. They shift easily from one mode to the next and I do not think they consider one form privileged or more authentic than the other. I believe many adults hold the notion that the physical world is REAL and the digital one IMAGINARY. I believe that for our kids the digital world is just as real and just as imaginary as the analogue one. This is their reality.

Second, given (almost) free reign to choose digital and analogue activities kids move from one to the other based on interest, the participants and other factors. That is, with very little parental guidance they choose well and do not become digital "addicts" as we sometimes worry they might become.

So let's let them play, in and out of digital worlds.

Generation D- the impulse to re-engineer

I was playing a quiet game of Candy Crush yesterday and my 8 (soon to be 9) year old son Itai came and sat next to me. For me, casual games like Candy Crush are a great way to pass a few minutes and do some problem solving. Itai, however, is generation D (digital) child and reacted to the game in a very different way.       

As I was olaying Itai was making suggestions about moves and figuring out how the game worked. Finally he said: "Wouldn't it be great if you could design your own board and could decide where the jelly and chocolate went?" He continued musing: "you could design your own special candy like a cross between the fish and chocolate". His stream of ideas went on as I was playing and I cannot remember them all, but what I do remember is how easily he has focused on the creation side. 

This of course is not accidental. I have been observing in schools and at home the impact of games like Minecraft and Little Big Planet. For adults they are games, but I argue that for kids they create new ways of thinking. As a result generation D maybe growing up the most creative one yet, a generation that has a creative instinct. A generation that idenftifies a problem and doesn't just want to solve it, they want to re-engineer it. The question for us is how do we design schools that cultivate and support this world view?

Losing Faith in Journalism- a response to "Can Students Have too Much Tech?"

My dean directed me toward an opinion article in the prestigious New York Times by Susan Pinker. The title was "can students have too much tech?" Who can resist this title? Of course you can have too much tech- thinks the person reading this on her iPad seating at Starbucks on a staurday morning. Kids these days all they do is play video games and waste their time texting.
A closer read of the article actually disproves the main thesis quite clearly. I expect more from a published author and a psychologist by training! I almost never comment on writing like this. In this case, however, I am mostly because we all expect better from a publication like the New York Times.

I would like to say that I agree with some of the premises in the article namely:
1. It sucks to be poor. Children raised in poverty have lower outcomes on standardized tests.
2. Devices are no magic. It depends what you do with them. Duh.
3. We still need teachers to teach even if we have devices.
4. Putting crappy devices in students hands without support will do very little to improve academic outcomes (sorry Sugata Mitra I am not a believer).

While we definitely need to be careful about technology use and balance in this just like any other facet of our lives a careful of the article and the sources cited bring a totally different picture.

Here is what is inflammatory, cherry picked, and untrue:

The story starts with the Obama initiatives on free and open Internet and providing access. Both policies are crucial for long term success of our educational system and social justice but are also completely unrelated to the evidence cited later. The critique is mostly about tech use at home

(where they gathered some correlational data) but the implication is that the president¹s agenda in this area is wrong.

The main concerns I have about the data presented (you can read the report here):

1. There is no consideration that technology is an area of literacy that is just as important than any other. Without computer/Internet literacy students are behind (if you can't conduct an excellent Internet search for research- how good is your research paper going to be?).

2. They basically point to an interaction between poverty and home access to technology. Does that mean that all kids are better off without access at school or even at home? Is she advocating letting middle class students have access at home but not for African American boys? Really?

3. The data is old and it predates smart phones, high speed internet, and the wide array of educational resources avaialbale and required in education (for example GAFE). Smart phones are now ubiquitous and most students from mid school up have them- including children growing up in poverty. That means that access is already there all that is left to schools and parents and to try and channel the activity to educational benefit as well as social and entertainment.

4. Now for the main source of data. The report is from 2010 the data is from 2000-2005 (what tech did we have then?). The report is by two economists. They actually claim: (1) that students that always had a computer actually improve over time (2) some students do better after they get a computer and finally and 

5. Most importantly their effect sizes are all in single digit % effect size that is for them an effect size of .02 standard deviation is fairly large. In educational research any effect smaller than .40 (that is 20 times higher than that reported). This effects are considered  small and not educationally meaningful.

The clearest part of this is that the author has failed at critical reading and thinking. She does not (want to?) understand that the devil in any report is in the details and in complete reporting including the context of a decade old study. It is legitimate to have concerns, it is also legitimate to question the ways technology can be used. Support for the argument should be based on a reasoned argument, and facts that are relevant to our current context. 

Gaming in Education- Observing Minecraft in the Classroom

In the last couple of weeks I have observed a few classrooms from Kindergarten to middle school using Minecraft EDU to support 21st century learning. To be completely honest I have not played Minecraft before this week, although I have watched my kids play it on the iPad and computer. I understood the theoretical affordances but for the first time I actually saw it in action in classrooms.

My first visit was to a fourth grade classroom facilitated by Jason Wilmot. As we walked into the classroom you could immediately sense the buzz of activity. As Matt Gordon shared later: "the first thing you get is engagement". All students were engaged moving around (the virtual world), asking for peer help, showing each other how to accomplish specific task. We (Jason, Ji and I) decided to start students with unstructured time seeing what patterns emerge. Jason is weaving in specific skills required by district and state standards making sure that students are receiving all the skills necessary.

I settled next to two students building houses one right next to each other. They were discovering functions and clearly helping each other produce the outline for their respective creations making sure that they each have enough space. This simultaneous communication off and on line is something we have observed across all grades. This is a fantastic illustration of the 21st century skills of Communication and Collaboration.

Moving to a different group I saw a student avatar in what seemed to be a vast underground cavern creating bales of wool and setting them on fire in large quantity. As I watched I could see no real reason for his actions. I casually asked: "I see that you are lighting a lot on fire". "Yes" he answered eagerly, "you see I am lost and can't find my way out. My friend is in the area", here he tapped the shoulder of his friend on the adjacent computer "he knows where he is. I hope that if the fire is strong enough he can see it and help me get out." I smiled. What I initially saw as a mindless activity, turned to be Critical Thinking and Problem Solving.

Two students were introduced to me as the "resident experts" since they have been playing at home for a few months. These two were mindlessly building, it seemed as if their position as experts was actually stopping them from exploring and innovating. I asked "What are building?"
"a house" they both answered almost in unison.
"can you make doors or windows in Minecraft?" I asked. One started showing me how you can make windows and seemed invigorated by the more structured task. Later I challenged him to create a second story with stairs leading up. He seemed somewhat disinterested but before I left he proudly showed me his new house with a roof garden and stairs that actually worked. His friend switched to creating a water area, a challenge to create a pool with a slide sent him on a creative bend as well.

On a visit to Matt Gordon's class in Horizon Middle School in Kearny we saw a real "Digital Making Space". His classroom hosted a variety of students working in Minecraft (set of tasks), creating video with iPads, editing work and probably a few other tasks that I failed to catch.

Both Matt's and Jason's spaces showed that the interaction of virtual world and a challenge led to Creativity and Innovation.

The biggest challenge that I observed across settings is the power of students to damage each others creation. While this problem can be managed with the tools embedded in Minecraft EDU, we would like to challenge students to create a civil society and foster democratic principles in which students set the norms and explore implication of personal and community boundaries. In this way we can address not just digital citizenship but citizenship in it's broadest sense.

The End of Textbooks as I knew Them and 5 Reasons it is Democratic

It seems that I got to the end of textbooks in my classes. This week I had an email from my contact at the book store. "What are your book orders for next semester". I almost sent an email saying, keep it as it is (that is no textbooks). But then I stopped myself. I wanted to hear what my students have to say. As I have said before my students and I have worked through half a no-textbook semester so far. The reaction was mixed and we have set a better infrastructure for making it work. So I went back to my class and asked. I felt I could ask and get honest answers because the answer has no direct impact on my current students AND I think we have developed an open rapport. When I pose a question like this we usually go around the room with each student weighing in. This time they all just said almost in a chorus- digital resources rule. The tone was a "you've got to be kiddin me" tone.

As an instructor this is plainly the better (though more labor intensive) approach. I choose my own materials, can present divergent point of views AND I must take the lead in presenting the underlying structure and way of thinking that connects everything. In a way this is the opposite of teacher proofing. Textbooks are easy in a deceptive way because they take away our need to unpack what it is we are trying to teach. So out they go.

At this point for full disclosure I would like to add that my students are asked to buy a few books, practical guides that have usable materials (Teacher trade books), but no textbooks. That is I am not anti-books, just pro making good instructional choices. And this is first and foremost an instructional choice with side benefits.

I also think that most of the current models for textbooks are obsolete and most of the companies simply do not get IT. The change is not just in format or even in the media included. There has been a shift in the way we consume all media. I am not sure I would like to see textbooks in the future, but if we do, it would probably have to follow a model like Netflix more than the traditional bookstore or even iBooks.

I am also wondering how this choice is linked to democratic education. I don't want to push it too far but here are a few ideas:

1. No textbooks make my classes effectively cheaper, thus more accessible. More likely I am simply releasing students with less debt. It is my small contribution to decreasing the cost of higher education. It is about $100 for each class (if you take into account that students sell their books back, more if they keep it). If we all did it, it would represent a savings of about $4000 to an undergraduate in our program.

2. A significant portion of the materials I use were developed as part of federal and state efforts. Such these efforts belong to all of us. Reading Rockets, and the Education Northwest are two great examples.

3. Using digital resources allows me to present divergent view and critiques that are presented with the same passion and expertise. This will force students to weigh the evidence and make up their own mind as budding professionals.

4. Most textbooks are currently rented for a period (especially if consumed digitally), or resold. The cost of textbooks forced most students to have only temporary ownership of the material. This creates two classes of students, those who will have access to quality materials (could afford to keep the books) and those that don't (had to resell). Since the resources are digital students can save them for future use.

5. It is more environmentally sound- less dead trees.


Since I am thinking about democratic education

Benefits of Gaming

This week I have been thinking of the befits of gaming. It started as Jason initiated a conversation about MinecraftEDU. This was combined with an interest from Ji one of my graduate students. Minecraft is a veteran game that still engages millions around the world. The EDU version allows educators to create a self contained and "safe" environment for students to explore.

As it happened I also presented at NETA fall conference this Thursday and happened to see the tail end of Jason Schmidt's presentation on MinecraftEDU. We had lukewarm coffee right after my presentation and chatted about opportunities to not just do but also research. I am excited.

As Ji and I brainstormed the benefits of using Minecraft we came up with four areas that we think would matter greatly to our students growing up in the 21st century.

1. Collaboration- to be successful students must learn to work together toward common goals, coordinate and learn to create a code of conduct. We also expect distributed practice and cognition. These are key skills and Jason suggested that he has already seen it at work.
2. Problem solving- since mine craft is a Lego like world with it's own rules any task requires some creative problem solving to reach goals (both ones you set for yourself and one set from the outside).
3. Engagement- we expect that incorporating Minecraft will improve attitudes toward school and engagement in school activities.
4. Creativity- The open ended nature of the world and the tasks can naturally lead to creative thinking and solutions.
5. Language- we expect that students will develop a community of practice that will distinguish itself using specific jargon and develop efficient ways to communicate.

By Megx see here

6. Democracy and control- Minecraft rests most of the control in the hands of students teaching them about decision making and creating opportunities for learning social skills and tolerance.

Our biggest challenge:
How do we measure impact?

We are currently collecting literature on these issues BUT we are thinking of designing individual and group tasks using Lego and
Keva Planks. More to come...
Comments and ideas welcome!

Six Lessons about Textbook Digital Alternatives- from Students Perspective

I've been working without a textbook this semester and discovered that my students do not read/ consume the media I included. My students are preservice teachers and I teach them teaching methods for reading and writing- a key area.

I decided to take Tricia's idea (more about that in a future post) and open the topic for discussion with my students. We set up a circle around the room and established rules for discussion: open, respectful to all, no grade repercussions, everyone has to contribute. I actually found it hard to phrase my concern about media consumption and what I wanted out of the discussion so I used a sort of a think aloud
sharing my goals and hopes for the no books approach but also reminding them that this innovation and it simply might not be optimal practice.

My students reaction was interesting. They made a few points:
1. They really prefer the digital resources. They all said that the variety of resources and the practical application examples are extremely helpful. I include high quality websites (e.g. ReadWriteThink.org, reading rockets) and articles from practitioner journals (e.g. The Reading Teacher).

2. They like classroom example videos the most. This was one of the main reasons I wanted digital resources the peeks at models different than their cooperating teachers can open up new ideas and break the first axiom of pre service teachers that states: When there is a dissonance between method classes and student field experiences the impact of method instructors is positively correlated with pre-service teacher achievement. Classroom videos help bring more evidence to the alternatives I am trying to bring to their attention.

3. They would like more chances to discuss and organize the information in class. The set of materials do not connect like a well organized textbook. Frankly they are not used to making these connections especially when different sources use somewhat different vocabulary. I believe that it is an important skill to learn as a professional but it requires some practice.

4. Sometimes they just "forget", or prioritize differently but that is true of traditional materials as well. We always knew they weren't always reading but with digital resources I have evidence. I do not want to turn the evidence into grading though- mostly because it can be easily "gamed" by opening files without actually engaging students.

5. Some often print out shorter pieces so they can comment. Students have obviously not used digital commenting options for consuming different media. This is something that they need to learn (and we must teach) since they will most likely have to teach this skill to their own students!

6. Some find long written pieces (in PDF) hard to follow digitally. (goes back to point 5).

So...
Together we came to some ways we can improve learning using these resources.
       I go over the assigned media in the class session before it is due. I briefly explain emphases and what I expect them to gain and provide some key vocabulary. This has been hard to remember but since then I have done it in 2 out of 3 meetings.
       We established a discussion board for questions about the reading to be posted before beginning of class. Students can either post their own questions or vote to support others questions. I have used this method extensively in my summer classes that I flipped to create "just in time" teaching.  I spend 10-15 minutes at the front end of class responding to questions that emerged from media consumption (for example- "the video showed how to do think alouds with fifth graders, how can you do it in first grade?"). The questions that I do not have time to respond to in class will be answered online through direct responses to posts (potentially too labor intensive) or a short video summarizing ideas.
      I will also try to avoid very long pieces (text or video) and establish a way for my students to evaluate the content and their satisfaction with it (still working on that one). The last piece is helping students find ways to comment on digital resources electronically maybe through a student user group...

Still work to be done.

   

Textbooks Alternatives and Despair

In my search fo better ways to teach I have challenged myself to teach this semester without textbooks. In my four classes I use no textbooks (although I do use two content books). Instead I use a series of freely available resources from professional organizations, libraries, YouTube etc. The idea was to tailor learning to students of the 21st century adapting to their media consumption behaviors. At the same time since all of my students aim to become elementary teachers this serve as a demonstration of a possible future in which education can choose a digital option that is not tied to one of the large curriculum companies.

As such I also imagined my role in the classroom changing from the authority on content to being the person who connects all the pieces to a meaningful schema.

A month in I have some neat mixed media in folders on LMS, I am happy enough with the resources. This is where despair kicks in. I spent a lot of time planning resources and approaches- putting items I think are really exceptional BUT when I try to get discussion going in my class I am met with blank stares. A quick check of student activity online shows that they are not consistently accessing the materials. Heck even materials students create for themselves and others as part of the learning are not really accessed...

This is where despair creeps in. The empty stares and quiz results tell me they are not consuming the media, that they do not know core ideas beyond what was discussed in class.

When I try and analyze why I have a few ideas. The first is that this is a new practice and students have been conditioned to consider online resources as somehow "lesser" or supplementary. Without a textbook class becomes the main event and without students being well versed it serves more like a lecture since they have no clue what I am talking about.
The second is that this is actually like textbooks that students often skip reading. While less dramatic this option is exactly one of the things I am trying to fight against.
The last options is that the materials lack a coherent structure and thus students are lost as they try to engage and they give up.

As I try these new ideas I am modeling to my students how one grapples with innovation and less than stellar outcomes so despair is not really a constructive option. Instead I will start an open discussion in class addressing my students as learners and teachers and hear what they think and suggest. I usually have an open conversation at the end of class when we know each other well, and I get some pretty honest feedback I use to redirect my class. This time it may worth trying to do so earlier, although I am facing the danger of collective negativity, that is the ability of one or two negative (but strong) personalities to influence events.

So, this thursday I will set chairs in a circle and be honest with my students hoping that they can learn from my mistakes... Deep breath.

E Readers and Young Students

At AERA I went to a superb session about the impact of e readers on young students engagement, vocabulary and reading success. The results were very positive. They are even more encouraging since tablets and other mobile devices have been making their way into a majority of homes.

Unique among all of it was the leadership of Kathy Roskos.

In her presentation she concluded:
Results show the impact of device on key multisensory behaviors of children’s engagement with ebooks. In general, mobiles appear to afford more looking and touching but less moving and gesturing than the desktop; none of the devices favored listening. Given the increasing role of haptic perception in digital reading, access to mobile devices may favor behaviors that nurture literacy motivation and participation, especially for less attentive children, and support ongoing engagement with ebooks for all children.

Here is the section description:
The surge in ebooks on a wide range of e-devices (whiteboards; touchscreens; mobiles) has dramatically increased their appeal as an option for shared reading with young children, although research evidence as to their impact on early literacy experience remains slim. This symposium contributes to the knowledge base on ebook reading in early childhood and lays the groundwork for further research that examines ebooks in the learn-to-read process in informal and classroom settings. Papers examine book vs ebook differences in parent-child reading, highlighting benefits and drawbacks; describe the technical adequacy/usability of an ebook quality rating tool; examine differences in device on engagement with ebooks; and report effects of temporal contiguity of picture/print in digital reading on vocabulary learning.
Research is emerging and soon we will be able to add to it. The greta thing is that the research produced is nuanced finding that some e books are better than others. We can actually identify the elements of good ebooks for young children including:

1. Limited interactivity (to not distract from the text too much)

2. Interactivity that is there should focus on main story features and relevant vocabulary

3. Device matters with increased engagement with truly mobile devices

4. E books can change the interaction between adult and child in dialogic reading and so requires a somewhat different training for adults.

Art and Sensory Overload- A Floridian Note

This past week I visited Florida with my kids. One day we chose to go to Young at Art an active arts experience in Davie Fl. It was a great facility with a lot of materials, styles and sensory inputs to explore. The place offered a plethora of art ideas from digital media, to architecture, plastic arts and visual arts. It also included music (mostly through percussion) and drama.

I was really looking forward to sharing this experience with my kids, but the place actually made it difficult to do that. What welcomed us was a wave of sights sounds and materials that overwhelmed not just my older than the mean senses but my kids (7,9, and 16) and their cousins (4,6,8). Every time I tried to stay at one point to explore in depth and create the eye of the child I was with at the time was immediately drawn to a different sound or sight beyond what we were doing. In a way the place was an invitation to not attend to anything but instead just move through the space constantly stimulated but never truly attending to any one thing.

I love art/science spaces designed for learning and I agree that we do not need stuffy old museum in which you have to stay quiet and not touch anything. But this option was so far the other side- that it serves to reinforce the idea that this generation of kids needs to be constantly bombarded with new inputs. This isn't true in any way but if we only create such experiences our kids and students will come to expect them. Just like my undergraduate students expect lecture, powerpoint presentations and letter grades. They are not wrong to expect them, it is what they grew up with. These are schemas that are usable even if not the most efficient.

The over-stimulation of spaces (real or digital) designed for kids may create a short attention-span generation, but this development is in direct conflict with the way our brains are designed. We can attend to only a few things at a time and develop deep understanding only given the time to focus on one thing without disruptive sensory inputs.

Speaking of Khan

A couple of weeks ago I caught Salman Khan on CNN. I have been a critic of Khan at times, but I do have to admit that the "unpolished" demeanor he has in interviews is somewhat endearing and usually lessens my resistance enough to actually listen. The anchor was interviewing him about the current state of education. I have to admit that I was initially miffed. There are many professionals that have dedicated their life to studying education and are coherent speakers on the matter. But here is this innovator commenting on the status of education, the Obama initiatives and what may come next. I understand why you would interview Khan about the future, but about the current state of affairs?

Then I listened to the interview (you can watch part if here Khan Video) and I have to admit that I was impressed by the clarity and focus of the statements. I especially liked these:

1. International rankings are not what we should worry about. We still lead in creativity and initiative.
2. At the same time we need to worry about who has a chance to participate in this economy- namely issues of equity.
3. We need room for creativity and problem solving.
4. We should preserve the room to make mistakes.
5. More homework is not rigor...

Home Literacy Environment in the Digital Age

Recently I have been working on home literacy environment and came across the Home Literacy Environment Questionnaire (HLEQ) by Griffin and Morrison. The measure was designed in 1997 and addresses paper based print only. In only 15 years the measure has become less and less relevant.
This brought me back to an observation that Berliner, perhaps my favorite educational thinker, made in an Educational Researcher piece. His claim was that some social research is very time dependent and has an "expiration date" [my phrase].

The rapid changes in what it means to be literate and the ways literacy plays out in a media rich digital world have made a large variety of research and practice tools irrelevant. Surveys and interviews that are paper centric in reading and writing miss whole potential worlds of engagement that exist parallel to the print world. In today's world access to magazines newspapers and libraries is paralleled to websites, applications and online newsstands.

It also means that publications cycles for research must be shorter if they explore new tools. These tools need to be comprised of modular pieces that can be removed when they become irrelevant and added to as new technologies become relevant.

Some examples can include: Adding to "How many hours of TV watching does your child do daily?"
"how many hours does your child play video games?" "How many hours does your child spend online?"
In addition to "how many books do you have at home?" We could add- How often do you use e-readers/ tablets to access magazines or books?"

I am working on such an instrument right now and will report some results soon!

What Tech Startups can Teach Educational Reform

Photo from: yoursmallbusinessgrowth.com

Let me start by saying that I have never been part of a tech startup so my view may very well be skewed. I recently read that many venture capitalists prefer investing in entrepreneurs that have already failed once. Actually in a phone conversation with my father he quoted the late Uri Menashe who told him once that he likes hiring retired IDF officers after they had failed their first civilian position. The main lesson for me is that to be successful you need to fail a few times, sometimes many times.

The problem is as Sir Ken Robinson likes to point out repeatedly is that we are building educational systems that seem to converge on the exact opposite direction. High stakes tests that constantly push one answer and the notion that failure is not an option.

So what are the lessons of startups?

1. Collaboration: most if not all startups are based on a group of individuals with different capacities and skills working together to accomplish something that hasn't been done yet. Relationships and the ability to work with others are crucial.
2. Failure must be an option: while the long term must be successful the road to success must include many short term failures.
3. High expectations: startups are successful only if they do something new, or something old considerably more efficiently that it essentially becomes something new.
4. Continued innovation: Once you do succeed you must work to improve and work on the next problem.

There might more and different ones for those who are inside startups but these are my takeaways. What does that mean in education? I believe that points to a very different system than the one we have now. Instead of a high stakes low expectation system I advocate a low-stakes high-expectation system. That is true in the classroom and in the school, for students, teachers, and administrators.

The fear of high-stakes is driving administrators, teachers and students to focus on the most direct route to a known answer- the exact opposite of a startup. Low stakes allow honest discussion and the option to fail occasionally so you can succeed in the long run. If every failure has high stakes we who are a risk averse species (see Arieli) shy away and stop innovating and taking risks. For education to match the needs and fast paced changes in modern society we must make room for low stakes so educators can experiment and provide room for short term failures leading to subsequent spectacular successes. We do not need to give up on high expectations instead we need to be patient for long term gains while short term fluctuations occur. In essence its what your investment advisor told you- don't pay attention to short term. In essence it makes all the leaders managing our educational systems akin to day traders instead of high-tech entrepreneurs.