Worth Sharing: Why Schools Are Increasingly Neglecting Introverts

Approximate Reading Time: 2 minutes

For many students, quiet time is key for the learning process.

The way in which certain instructional trends—education buzzwords like “collaborative learning” and “project-based learning” and “flipped classrooms”—are applied often neglect the needs of introverts. In fact, these trends could mean that classroom environments that embrace extroverted behavior—through dynamic and social learning activities—are being promoted now more than ever. These can be appealing qualities in the classroom, of course, but overemphasizing them can undermine the learning of students who are inward-thinking and easily drained by constant interactions with others.

Source: When Schools Overlook Introverts: Why Quiet Time is Important for the Learning Process – The Atlantic

While I will agree that working collaboratively is useful (I talked about the “flipped classroom” in a previous post), but I am an introvert and have rarely enjoyed collaborative work. As I get older, I am learning ways to do collaboration that work for me, and I have also learned that a crucial part of learner-centered instruction is finding multiple ways for learners to accomplish the tasks you have set out.

I have also noticed that a great many of the teachers I have met and many, if not most of the education professors I have met are extroverts. For some reason extroverts seem to have a great deal of difficulty empathizing with introverts. They see us as deficient somehow. Well, there are other ways to do these things besides theirs.

This is where my gamified approach shines.

By providing students with a wide variety of tasks from which to choose, students can choose ones that fit with their approach. Yes, they will have to learn to do all kinds of things, including things they don’t like, but do they ALWAYS need to be forced to do that? Of course not.

I give my students only one task where they have to work in groups, AND I provide them with tools that will allow them to work together without always having to be in the same room together. While this may not completely solve the energy drain that happens to introverts when they are made to work in groups, it helps.

 

Source: Why Schools Are Increasingly Neglecting Introverts

Be the first to like.

Magician or Wizard: When it Come to Tech, Which One are You?

Approximate Reading Time: < 1 minute

Source, Wikimedia Commons. Lizamirosh, Author

Forget about “Digital Natives” when it comes to technology. What really counts is whether you are a magician or merely a wizard?

You see, when it comes to tech, being a wizard is not what one might hope.

Don’t get me wrong, I really like the term digital native (thanks to Marc Prensky for coming up with it!). It has prompted some great discussion and lots of important research. It’s just that the idea that people born after a certain year have a ‘natural’ competence with technology isn’t quite true. Plus, it misses the point. As technology becomes ubiquitous and we come to rely on it more and more. Being competent in the use of technology is one thing, but understanding it is a different thing entirely.

cooking-ingredients-492339A long time pet peeve of mine is that many, if not most people in Ed Tech don’t actually know tech. If you’re going to claim to be tech savvy, then you MUST be more than a mere user(*). You must understand something about how that tech works. If you don’t then you are nothing more than a pretender, like the wizard or witch who knows how to do the incantations, but has no clue how they actually work.

A magician, on the other hand, does know how the tricks work. There is no magic, but that in no way diminishes the skill and deep understanding required to do the things they do. Making others believe in magic takes serious expertise.

When it comes to tech, you really want to to be a magician, not a wizard.

Image credit: Penn and Teller (All Rights to this image belong to them).

 

(*)

There are only two industries that refer to their customers as ‘users’.

(Edward Tufte)

Be the first to like.

BeckerBlog Clip Show, 1st Edition: Who Teaches Teachers?

Approximate Reading Time: 2 minutes

2012-10-08 14.17.58b_wmIn the last few months the readership of this blog has increased significantly, which is really great, and it has occurred to me that there have been some pretty good posts in the past that are worth bringing up again. My last post touched on several issues that keep coming up and I thought some might be interested in seeing some of my past posts on these issues. These all have to do with who we have teaching our teachers, how they go about it, and what effects that has on the entire education system. I’ve long thought that when there are problems with what teachers do and how they do it, education faculties (and the educator academics -EAs – who populate them) need to take responsibility for the role they play in creating or perpetuating the problem.

So, without further ado, here are a few:

Knowing ‘X’ does not imply knowing ‘Y’
This one focuses on what some EAs say about digital game based learning, pedagogy, and design. While this post talks about educators (and others) making pronouncements about digital games, it applies equally to people who feel qualified to make pronouncements about any topic simply because they have some knowledge of a related topic. EAs seem to be particularly susceptible to this type of fallacy.

Horses, Buggies, and Trendy Sheep: Appropriate Technology and Modern Times
This one describes two types of teachers (this includes EAs): those who stick to what they know and resist change – the horse-and-buggy educators, and those who jump from bandwagon to bandwagon, convincing themselves that their trendiness makes them superior teachers.

Are Education Academics Clueless Snobs?
All EAs ought to know something besides education. They should not only know how to teach, they should know how to teach SOMETHING – and they should have had to do it. If nothing else, it might give them an appreciation for the difficulties specific to teaching some thing, as opposed to teaching in the general sense.

Pseudoteaching
Teaching teachers is essentially meta-teaching (see above) and if you really understand that, it is possible to do a good job of it. Sadly, some don’t. These are the ones who do a great job of looking like they’re teaching when really all they’re doing is acting the part.

Be the first to like.

Where is the Value-Added in the Flipped Classroom?

Approximate Reading Time: 3 minutes

I’ve been pondering the concept of the “flipped classroom” for some time now. This article speaks to a lot of the things I’ve been thinking.

Historian Rachel Hope Cleaves recently identified a recurring meme in the history of food advertising: pigs slaughtering themselves. She first tweeted an image of pig leaping into a meat grinder. Others followed with different examples of suicide, some not requiring machines. Over and again, our porcine friends happily sacrifice themselves for our gustatory delectation. The irony of these pictures, if you know anything about pigs, is that they are among the smartest animals in the animal kingdom, and therefore unlikely to carve themselves up to be served on a platter. Yet there they are, happily chopping away.

Source: The ‘flipped classroom’ is professional suicide

As a part-time instructor, I am acutely aware of the tenuous nature of my employment. As a veteran teacher and instructional designer, I am always wary of educational fads. For some reason education seems to be particularly susceptible to fads. Now, most teachers are genuinely interested in doing right by their students, so their zeal for each “new” elixir  should give us pause.

There seems to be a tendency for educational ‘leaders’ (and I use the term cautiously here) to acquire a cult of personality, so that the mere fact that these people have said something gives it a legitimacy it may not deserve. I have come across more than a few education professors who position themselves as sages when many of them really don’t have much real experience at all.  Let me explain:

A great many of the educator-academics I have met have degrees ONLY in education. Sure, they may have taught in a ‘real’ school for a little while (often not long though), but I can tell you from personal experience that one or two, or maybe even five years of actually doing it will not give you the experience you need to really understand how hard it can be to teach something. The perspective I gained after teaching CS for 25 years is light-years away from what I knew after I’d been teaching for 5 years.

Teaching about teaching is a whole different game. It’s meta-teaching. I have to hand it to them though; they’re good at that. They often fool countless students into believing they know what they are talking about (some call it pseudoteaching). You know what though? They really don’t. They actually don’t know what they’re taking about – mostly, they’re just good salespeople. Sure, they may understand it, academically – in other words, they understand it like I can understand what it’s like to be a brain surgeon by reading about it and watching movies about it. Truth is, until I’ve had my hand (or whatever) inside somebody’s head, I can’t understand. Not really.

Until you’ve actually had to teach something, You don’t really understand what’s tricky about it. Talk to any ‘pure educator’ about teaching recursion. Mostly, they have no clue.

I think all academic educators ought to know something besides education. They should not only know how to teach,  they should know how to teach SOMETHING – and they should have had to do it. If nothing else, it might give them an appreciation for the difficulties specific to teaching some thing, as opposed to teaching in the general sense.

Back to this “flipped classroom” fad. While I will grant there may be some value in off-loading some of the more straight-forward stuff to videos for students to watch outside of class time (like assigning reading), there are many problems with this approach – not the least of which is that we don’t have any actual evidence (other than a few small studies) that it solves any problems. The “flipped classroom” became a fad when Salman Khan started to push it. He had some good ideas to be sure, but he is not the saviour that many in education claim he is. People demand “proof” that games work as educational technologies, but when some education celebrity says something is cool, teachers and academics fall all over themselves to subscribe to buy their Product, in much the same way people flock to celebrities who claim to have health and fitness solutions.

Professional suicide aside, sending your students home to watch or listen to lectures so you can spend time in class working with individual students may help some students, but I can tell you from first-hand experience, it disadvantages others. So really, all you’ve done is switch one group of disengaged learners for a different one. If you are one of those teachers who likes to be a follower of celebrity, then I guess it will make you feel like you’re part of some “IN” crowd. If that’s how you make your pedagogical decisions, then maybe you should re-think your profession, because this makes you part of the ongoing problem rather than the solution.

Be the first to like.

Gamification 101[16]: End of Week Two

Approximate Reading Time: < 1 minute

This is Part 16 in my continuing saga of my current iteration of a gamified course.

SO at the end of week two I have a greater % of students with “points on the board” than I ever have. This is encouraging. I still don’t know if it is because I have a better batch of students or if it’s because I’m doing a better job – I suspect there’s a bit of both.

I think I’m learning how to introduce the things they need to know.

Right now the average score is 47 and the high score is 107. 42/48 students have submitted work for assessment, and I’ve marked 146 items. I have calculated a submission rate that is steady based on a simple formula (based on what week it is and how many points they need for an A) and no-one has met it yet, but it’s very early in the course and I expect things to pick up in the next few weeks – especially as students start to submit some of achievement quests.

It’s worth asking…. how many students have had 2 rounds of marking in their other courses? How many have already received feedback? This is a big deal. I think it’s worthwhile to start giving students feedback early and often.

What do you think?


gamificationIf you are interested in following my course journal, watch for the “Gamification 101” heading.

Also, for more information on gamification, check out my website here.

Be the first to like.

Worth Sharing: Rex Murphy: Institutes of lower education | National Post

Approximate Reading Time: < 1 minute

Some universities — and, in particularly, some humanities departments — have, over the last few decades, wandered far from the primary purpose of what these institutions were designed for: to teach what is worth knowing; to train the intellect; to acquaint students with, and help them appreciate, the glories of the human mind and its finest achievements.Concomitantly, they have descended into pseudo-studies, become infatuated with low pop culture, become obsessed with faddish social justice issues, turned hypervigilant on their students’ “comfort levels” and are pruriently concerned with sexism narratives, cause politics and “identity” zealotry. They bear almost no resemblance to the institutions of higher learning — higher in its full applications — that they, at least ideally, have always aspired to be.Junk in, junk out, is a variation on the computer axiom. Any institution that puts Madonna and hegemony in the same sentence, never mind in the title of a thesis, has cut the cords on the balloon and is floating off on some vague, directionless journey to nowhere in particular.

Source: Rex Murphy: Institutes of lower education | National Post

Be the first to like.

Gamification 101[15]: Efficient Marking that Doesn’t Short-Change Your Students

Approximate Reading Time: 3 minutes

This is Part 15 in my continuing saga of my current iteration of a gamified course.

Given that this design allows for students to submit up to 60 different items for assessment (some of which have multiple parts) as well as allowing for re-submission, AND given the importance of fast turn around in marking, it is crucial that there be an efficient way of marking that still provides students with meaningful feedback.

Let’s look at these things separately. Although they are related, I think it’s important to consider efficiency and the quality of the feedback separately to make sure both are adequately addressed. Although many instructors will claim that they mark everything in detail, most don’t. As we become more experienced, we also become better at scanning through assignments to find the key things we are looking for. It’s those key things that should end up in the assessment guide.

Meaningful feedback:

  1. Most of the standard and mini-quests do not require detailed feedback. Some can be pass-fail. If they are ‘good enough’ then most of the time no comments are required. It’s really only when there is a problem that I need to comment. There’s a space in the quest log for comments. The requirements are laid out carefully in the quest descriptions.
  2. The Achievement Quests are like regular assignments and they are given a more detailed treatment. I’ve seen many assessments that allot 2 marks for this, 4 marks for that, and so on adding up to 100 marks, but this sort of thing doesn’t really help the students. It forces a kind of cookie-cutter solution that does not allow for any kind of creativity. Instead, I use a more general description that highlights the key things I’m looking for. Each is graded on a sliding scale from really good (full points) to missing (0). Again, there’s a space for comments.snap01618
  3. I even have one that is an iterative assignment.snap02071

Efficient marking:

  1. Some items are effectively pass-fail, allowing me to assess them very quickly.
  2. The quizzes are automatically graded, so all I need to do is record the grade in the scorecard.
  3. Achievement and Epic Quests are set up so that each line item is worth either 5 or 10 XP, and these are explained in the scorecard.snap01621
  4. All scoring is done in spreadsheets that have formulas set up to total the scores automatically so that all I have to do is type in the score for the line item and everything else is done – including the front sheet display that shows the current level (colour-coded) and letter grade.example front sheet
  5. No student submits all the things they can submit, so even though there are 60 different items,

 

Marking still takes several hours per week, but with this set-up, I can spend more of my time actually marking things, and less time clicking buttons and loading pages. Some items only take a few seconds to assess, and a few more seconds to comment on, and because everything is accessible quickly, I can do some marking any time I have 10 or 15 minutes to spare. Rather than having to sit down every week or two and grade a whole bunch of stuff, students are submitting things on an ongoing basis so I have a smallish number of things to mark every few days. Nothing builds up. On average, students submit about 35 items per semester, which means I have about 100 things to mark per week, but, most only take a few seconds.

 

On the whole students like having more smaller items to submit as opposed to a few larger ones. They get ongoing feedback and can see themselves making steady progress.


gamificationIf you are interested in following my course journal, watch for the “Gamification 101” heading.

Also, for more information on gamification, check out my website here.

Be the first to like.

Games vs Game-based Learning vs Gamification : New Infographic, but still wrong.

Approximate Reading Time: < 1 minute

This same group (Upside Learning) posted a very similar infographic back in June. Although a few things have been changed, the table they present to show the differences is identical to the one they published in June. Sadly, it may be simplified, but it’s still as wrong now as it was then. (If you want to see a description that is closer to being right, see mine at the bottom of this post.)

Games vs Game-based Learning vs Gamification, an infographic, is a simplified explanation to how these similar sounding terms differ.

Source: Games vs Game-based Learning vs Gamification | Infographic

Here again, is my version (Note: This image is not to be posted anywhere or re-used without my written permission):

game-gbl-gamification

NOTE: If You want an updated version of this table, see my post from February 3, 2018:

What’s the difference between serious games, educational games, and game-based learning?

1 person likes this post.