Voice Assistants

Our spaces our filling with voice assistants, Google, Apple, and Amazon all have created an interface that allows users including young learners to interact without needing keyboards or even touch screens. I believe that we need to launch a serious effort to see what are the affordances and unintended consequences of these devices to learning as become increasingly ubiquitous.

While some research has begun, more common are anecdotal observations by parents researchers, and teachers. For example, earlier today in a conversation Ji Guo, a Doctoral Graduate and current colleague brought up the fact that his son was using google to ask questions as he was reading. His observation was that his son was leaning on google to clarify as a "while reading" strategy. Instead of stopping his reading to answer a quick question (e.g. how large is a Dolphin), he could ask and get a quick answer and keep on reading without getting any further distracted by the interaction with a screen. I love this example because it parallels the use of digital dictionaries embedded in digital texts. Both allow the reading to continue quickly and with minimal interruption while allowing the learner to collect further information.

The main danger described by parents is that students start relying exclusively on the assistant to supply information that students have yet to internalize, which is still important. The first example is multiplication. Google, Amazon, and Siri all can give quick answers, but understanding the concepts behind multiplication is a key numeracy skill that all students should acquire. In this case, the assistant can create false learning paths that will undermine the future development of learners. The answer of course is not to resist the use of devices but instead to think about the ways and times they can use it. This is especially true since many years ago we had the same discussion about the use of calculators in classrooms. 

I am excited to look for researchers looking into this new area for exploration!

I am still learning

 Our two weeks of intensive summer work have ended. It is early to talk about results but I can reflect on what I have learned. In the past two weeks, I have been fully immersed with our participants, occasionally I led discussions and activities the rest of the time I split between being a catalyst for discussions sparking directions and ideas, and participating. I was a learner, artist, and curriculum designer. I reflected on my teaching and made plans to do better.

I rediscovered the joy of learning with experienced yet eager professionals. I have learned earnestness, patience, technique, vulnerability, and the joy of movement to name a few. I have been in higher education for close to 25 years and have not had (or allowed myself to have) a professional development that I embraced as thoroughly as I did in Art TEAMS. 

I will try to name a few specific lessons:

1. Movement in magic- Sir Ken Robinson said in his famous Ted Talk Do Schools kill creativity? that education thinks only from the shoulders up. I agreed with his argument but as a university head-first person assumed that it was only marginally true for me. I agreed with his example that some people are dancers and should have the opportunity to move and express themselves. What I missed was that we are all dancers moving through the world (some like me more goofily), and that we can all benefit from movement (thank you Maggie).

2. Trust is everything- This is something I often discuss in my teaching but this time I felt the impact of trust (and the breaking of trust) on me and the teachers around me. With trust, our fight or flight instincts do not emerge immediately when confronting something difficult and uncomfortable. I can say more but I would like to wait for our research to shed some light.

3. Playfulness is learning- During the two weeks, I created art in what can only be described as playful ways. I used different materials approaches and media to mixed results. I failed spectacularly and shared my failures with as many people as possible. Yes, I aimed to model learning behavior but mostly through "forgetting" and letting myself just be in the creative moment. As a result, I learned a lot (still processing) and got a lot braver about sharing my work and sharing myself.

 4. Emerging Media arts emerged- I have been worried that we did not infuse enough emerging media arts into the work. We decided to wait on digital tools and just occasionally included tools to bring forward the work into the realm of emerging media arts. Despite this "low infusion" approach the final projects and reflections included many products that included emerging media arts. Moreover, now the teachers are ready for a bigger taste of emerging media and eager to integrate.

In the coming months, I will add some more but this is where I am now, exhausted, satisfied, and eager to continue!

Art TEAMS is off to a Great Start

 

This week we finally started our Art TEAMS grant with teachers. The project is developing self-driven creative learners who connect disciplines using arts and emerging media as a language to engage and organize knowledge and life experiences.

We will accomplish this by developing, implementing, and evaluating a professional development program for K-12 art educators, generalist teachers, principals, teaching artists, and museum educators.

This week was our first with this great crew of educators. In this professional learning opportunity, we have been careful to design a program that respects the strengths of all the participants and positions everyone as a participant and co-leader. I have to admit that I have not created this much physical representation of learning since my Graduate school days at UCR, nor have I created this much art since my elementary school days. I have found the interactions and the learning powerful, and I believe we are on our way to creating a powerful model that will provide an avenue for innovation. 

Reflecting on this week, my lessons are:

1. We all require protected time to make leaps in our practice and transform our approach. I do know that summer workshops transformation is hard to bring back into the classroom, and thus we will continue to support and work with our team of educators for the next two years.

2. Art is fun even for those with a limited artistic ability (me). You just have to let go and be playful. 

3. Exploring the affordances of materials and discovering their malleability is a truly engaging endeavor.

4. Movement. Movement is magical; in many ways, it is a discovery for me, a discovery that makes me dance with joy. 

Finally, I want to reflect on a moment of pride. In this grant, we insisted on supporting local Nebraska artists. We have found four unique and outstanding artists. I will talk about each of them in a different post but for now suffice to say that I have had a glorious week, and I cannot wait for next week to continue the work.

Mass shooting at Uvalde elementary school

 I found out about the massacre on a flight to the RESPECt conference in Philadelphia, the city of brotherly love. What is the point of discussing how to teach computer science to young children when their lives are forfeit? Yes the gunman/child was most likely unstable. But the fact that the act of desperation is aimed at young children and the people who care for them? That is a social ill. We have to do better, we have to do something. We shall say prayers, but those are not enough. I just hope that this will not kick off a new campaign of denial debasing the loss of grieving parents.

Computer Science as a Core and the Buffalo Massacre

 

The argument against teaching computer science to all came this week from some of our rural schools. They point out, and rightfully so, that the many jobs needs in their communities go far beyond computer science. Once again, I would like to stress that rural communities do need to manage their needs in flexible and locally sensitive ways. 

My point, however, is that we should stop thinking about computer science as exclusively a Career and Technical Ed issue. It is not. Understanding and being able to get a sense of technology is a core knowledge. The metaphor for me is the difference between a health career class (CTE) and biology (core knowledge). All educated people need to understand core ideas in the way the world works around them. Technology-driven by the capacity of computer science is one of the most dominant forces in our lives. 

An example in public discourse is how some platforms use algorithms that create extremist views by presenting users with a twisted worldview fed by engagement algorithms. Extremists from all creeds seem to find a community and become radicalized online. Teaching Computer Science will not solve this problem. It will, however, help at least some users understand the process and maybe resist it a little better.

Curriculum Unhidden

This post is a result of a series of conversations I recently had with a number of people vis-a-vis more recent developments in curriculum development and rejection.

So first things first- the hidden curriculum, according to Wikipedia is, "A hidden curriculum is a set of lessons "which are learned but not openly intended"^[1]

 to be taught in school such as the norms, values, and beliefs conveyed in both the classroom and social environment.^[2]" (Wikipedia). More recently, efforts like the 1619 project curriculum were recognized as subverting the hidden curriculum. In the past attacks on new curricula were often somewhat veiled in language that claimed that these new approaches will lead to children not learning. This was very clear during the attacks on "New Math". I do not want to get into what New Math is or even if it was working. I just want to note that it was an innovation that got ridiculed without a serious look. My point is that it got attacked because it was new, and it was in some ways disrupting elements in the Hidden Curriculum. The attacks on the Common Core standards are very much the same. The common core became a political target as explored in informative ways in the website #commoncore project.

We have changed since then. The attacks on Critical Race Theory and banning curricula, for example in Florida, have made it clear that there is no more hidden curriculum. Instead, we have a hotly debated curriculum that is at the center of a political maelstrom. In some ways, I welcome the open discussion about the content of education. On another level, this makes education at the center of the culture wars in ways that are not welcoming for students and teachers. 

Thinking about the Future of Conferences

 For the past three weeks, I have been to three conferences. SITE, the Society for Information Technology in Teacher Education, in San Diego, was an international hybrid conference (I went in person). NETA, the Nebraska Educational Technology Association, was an in-person-only conference. And finally, AERA, the American Educational Research Association meeting in San Diego, is a hybrid conference, and I am attending virtually only.

These are in no way my first conferences after the pandemic. Still, their concentration in a span of two weeks allowed me to think about the affordances and limitations of technology. First, there is no doubt that the face-to-face interaction of in-person conferences allows a different set of interactions. For example, after one of my presentations, I just happened to meet Erkko Sointu from Eastern Finland university in the corridor; a short interaction resulted in his declaration "Go Big Red" and a discussion about his ties to Nebraska. This led to great conversations, me hearing about some of the work done by the group and a cluster of proposals for a conference they are holding next Fall (Hybrid). NETA is a practitioner conference. At NETA, I  spent a good part of my time interacting with teachers in our booth. I reached out to passers-by and engaged with them. This would not be possible at all in an online format in which participants have to choose to engage with me specifically.

Right now, I am in a hybrid format meeting of AERA. I have not engaged in many sessions despite paying and having an interest. The online interaction is more challenging because staying at home/work means that I have many competing commitments away from the intellectual benefits of the conference. Not seeing people in person lowers my level of engagement considerably. All of these reasons point to the significant affordances of the in-person conference. Well, not so fast.

On Thursday afternoon of the SITE conference, I walked down the corridor. Four rooms had no living person in them but had a projection of presenters and participants, all online,  engaged. It was an eerie experience that felt like bad science fiction; however, the participants included many who were limited in their ability to travel (cost, health) or international participants for whom the travel was onerous. The result is that many participants who would not otherwise have access to the work were able to present, learn and grow. 

Travel, especially by plane, has a significant carbon footprint. There is no doubt that in-person conferences are full of growth opportunities, serendipity, and fun. But are these qualities worth the price in carbon footprint? 

I do not have an answer to what we should do, but I would like to suggest:

1. We should keep exploring alternative formats for conferences that engage participants in fuller ways than they do now. 

2. We should be highly selective of the conferences we choose to attend in person.

3. We should experiment in other ways to interact with each other through digital means- perhaps ed camp (unconference) style.