Are Books a Sign of Intellingent Life?

Posted on by
Reply
Approximate Reading Time: 2 minutes

I’ve seen a number of articles recently relating children’s success in school with the number of books in the house when they were growing up.

Class Struggle – Power of books my wife grew up with.

Books in home as important as parents’ education in determining children’s education level.

One discussion on the subject had people musing about the results if they simply went out and bought a whole pile of books (ANY books) for the shelves, or if they simply painted pictures of books in shelves on the wall.

I am quite convinced that it is not the mere presence of books that really makes the difference. True, having them available and handy can be very useful, but what is more important than the books themselves is what it says about the people who bought them and who keep them handy.

The number (and kind) of books in the house are a sign of how much and in what ways the people use and value the books. It’s about the kind of people who would HAVE those books. It is the sharing of time and things we value that is key here.

We have books in every ‘room’ of our house, including every bedroom, hallway and the farm room (upwards of 3000 books altogether). And yes, we did read to our kids (long after they were able to read for themselves too); they were encouraged to look things up in books and they watched us do the same when we were curious about things.

We also have about 12 computers, various musical instruments, music, movies, lots of toys and tools (electronic & otherwise) and a lot of animals. Our kids have learned how to read, play, learn, have fun, and relate to the natural world around them. We would have found ways to enlighten and inspire our kids even if we didn’t have the means to put all those things in their paths.

The concern I have with findings like these is that people who don’t normally value books or learning may believe that they can improve their child’s success by simply buying books and putting them in the house. They will focus on the simple, single indicator: number of books. If all they ever do is dust them, it’s not going to make much difference.

Be the first to like.

Unlike

Time to End the Honeymoon for Game Studies

Posted on by
Reply
Approximate Reading Time: 2 minutes

It’s not often that we get to see a new discipline be born and grow up these days, but that’s exactly what we have with Game Studies. Although there were indeed people looking at and writing about games before 2002 (see the Computer Games and Digital Cultures Conference Proceedings (2002)), there really were none of the usual elements that mark an academic discipline (like organizations, conferences, journals, and university courses and programs).

Well, there are now and it’s time to level up.

It’s time to demand a higher level of discourse and more rigorous standards than we could afford at the beginning. I’m not the only one thinking along these lines. Ian Bogost has recently posted some thoughts on what Henry Jenkins has called called ‘aca-fandom’.

My take on it is a little harder: we have become fat and lazy from over-indulgence on low-hanging fruit.

In the early days of games studies (like, 5-10 years ago) there seemed little call for careful scrutiny of one’s game choices or what we wrote about them. We studied what we had handy and wrote about the games we were already playing. We could say almost anything we wanted to because none of it had been said yet.

The ‘1st-tier’ games researchers (i.e. the ones who were publishing on games more than 5 years ago) could really get away with almost anything. Half-baked ideas? GREAT – Be a Keynote; publish a book; become famous! Wanna earn academic brownie points off of the games you’re playing for fun? EASY. Write about your own experiences and draw conclusions based on the experiences of your friends. No academic rigor need; unjustified, personal opinions are just fine.

To be fair, a lot of useful and interesting things came from this. But that was in the beginning. We’re past this now and if you want Games Studies to earn any kind of academic credential, it’s time to grow up and add some rigor.

I am still seeing far too many publication submissions (and even worse, articles actually published) that not only don’t say anything new, but in many cases talk about projects that aren’t even past the planning stage yet. Really. COME ON! If someone tried that in a more established discipline they would be dismissed in an instant.

Then there are the hordes of newcomers who think they are the first ones to think these thoughts. They write and submit articles whose references SUCK. If these people tried this in literature, history, or film studies, say, they wouldn’t even get a second read.

As John Kerriemuir said several years ago now, it is no longer necessary to begin each paper with “Games are now quite popular….” but it is necessary to do your homework, just like it is in every other discipline.

  1. Do a proper literature review.
  2. Know what’s been done in your area of interest.
  3. Be very clear on how your contribution adds to the body of knowledge.
  4. Works in progress are NOT enough for a full, or even a short paper, especially if you have no data to report.
  5. DON’T accept a submission just because your friend (or grad student) wrote it.

Feel free to add more…..

Be the first to like.

Unlike

Bloom Gone Digital Misses the Mark

Posted on by
1
Approximate Reading Time: 3 minutes

Bloom’s Taxonomy Blooms Digitally, Andrew Churches.

ref: Bloom’s

Wow. Where do I begin? I could easily write thousands of words on what is wrong with this taxonomy. Understand that this is nothing personal – I do not know the author and have no desire to hurt anyone’s feelings. It’s just that this taxonomy exposes a number of serious misconceptions about technology, how it works, and what we can do with it. These are very common misconceptions and tie back to a complaint I have had ever since I started studying Educational Technology formally, namely, that Ed.Techs (for the most part) don’t really know tech. Being able to use it is NOT the same as knowing it. Being able to drive is not the same as knowing how the car works. Ed.Techs need to be more than mere drivers.

Now, before I start taking this taxonomy apart, let me say that I do applaud Andrew Churches for putting an obvious amount of careful thought and effort into this. Figuring out where modern digital technologies fit into Bloom’s classic is a worthwhile endeavor. BUT, there is a tendency for people to be overly impressed by technology and to imbue it with too much power (especially if they don’t really understand how it works). It’s a good start though.

There is a middle ground between seeing technology as a mere vehicle and seeing it as a panacea. This is very important.

Rather than write a single long treatise, I will summarize the problems and then write a more detailed explanation later (in subsequent posts). SO here they are; in no particular order (the numbering is only to allow easy reference):

  1. The classifications of the new verbs give far too much credit for actions that merely use the technology. It confuses tool *use* with actual thought. Many of the elements are inflated w.r.t. where they belong on the hierarchy.
  2. The verbs describe the use of specific tools rather than the intellectual skills they represent. It would be like listing ‘pencil use’ or ‘book manipulation’.
  3. It confuses collecting information with actually remembering or understanding it. For example, bookmarking isn’t remembering. This is a serious misconception with far-reaching implications.
  4. Finding does NOT belong in the same category as knowledge (original Bloom’s) or remembering (revised). If anything it belongs in a new category BELOW Knowledge. Just because I know where or how to find something does not mean I know it.
  5. Twittering has very little to do with understanding and a great deal to do with vociferation and parroting.
  6. I really wish people would stop using terms they don’t really understand. Boolean logic is a very fundamental (and old) notion in informatics. It has been part of programming literacy since the beginning of programming. It is a topic, and as such has no place in Bloom’s taxonomy, unless you want to start listing all  topics and concepts. That’s not what Bloom’s is for and indicates confusion about the level of abstraction at which Bloom’s operates. If Boolean logic has a place in Bloom’s, then so does Algebra, and the Kreb’s Cycle (and a million other topics).
  7. Subscribing has nothing to do with understanding. It is a variation on collecting. The author himself admits that “the act of subscription by itself does not show or develop understanding but often the process of reading and revisiting the subscribed-to feeds leads to greater understanding.” Do not put elements into categories to which they could belong if people developed the idea. Bloom’s is a taxonomy of where these elements fit in a hierarchy, not a projection of where things could lead.
  8. Hacking does not mean applying a set of rules to achieve an objective.
  9. Editing is not applying. Neither are uploading, sharing, running, or operating. I don’t even know where these things belong, but I know they sit somewhere below Knowledge. Some are merely psycho-motor skills.
  10. Tagging is not analyzing (except in the most superficial sense). In many cases these days when you go to tag something, the application will offer suggestions and all you have to do is click on them. It is classifying.

I do agree that we should be looking at the cognitive implications of using various technologies, but what has been presented here, though a useful first draft, is too superficial and inflated. It is the perspective of a tool user when it should come from the perspective of a tool maker.

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. – Arthur C. Clarke

6 people like this post.

Unlike

Another Attempt to Fix Broken Education by Simply Making it More

Posted on by
2
Approximate Reading Time: 2 minutes

I’ve seen this before. Summer Vacation is once again under attack in the U.S.

See: The Case Against Summer Vacation – TIME.

There is no question that formal education is broken in the U.S. (To be fair, it isn’t so hot here in Canada either, but it IS considerably better here than there). Americans wonder why they keep slipping down the ranks when it comes to college enrollments, science scores, high school completion, and so on. Of course, the logical result of these things is that the U.S. is also loosing its superiority when it comes to science, technology, and engineering (some would say they already lost their superiority years some years ago, but Americans have a hard time admitting they are not the best at something that matters to them).

The answer to these problems does NOT lie in forcing kids to spend more time in school. I recall a discussion that went on in my former department when they decided to offer two 1st year programming streams: one for students who had prior programming experience and one for students with NO prior programming experience. Both would consist of 2 regular courses. Their answer to making sure those with no prior experience ended up in the same place as the others? Why, more lecture hours of course. As if talking at them for an extra hour or two a week is going make the difference. We already know that students will learn something, even if the teacher is lousy, which many of us have known for years (based on first-hand observation of our, shall we say, less than dedicated colleagues).

The answer lies in improving the quality of education. It means, among other things:

  • giving teachers the time they need to prepare their lessons
  • giving teachers the time they need to do professional development
  • making sure the teachers actually know the subjects they teach
  • making sure the kids that need help, get it
  • making sure the better students get the enrichment they deserve
  • making sure all the kids get a decent meal
  • making sure kids don’t get shot in school
  • making sure kids don’t even have to THINK about getting shot, or stabbed, or beaten up in school

….and so on. All of these things COST MONEY. Education is neither cheap, nor efficient. Contrary to the typical American sentiment, more and bigger is not better. When it’s done right, less is in fact more.  Quality is more important than quantity.

Ultimately, one of the best investments a country can make in its own future, is to ensure that its population is well educated. It is well known that the three things a government needs to do to keep its population under control (read: oppressed) is to keep it sick, scared, and ignorant. It takes a government willing to trust its own people in order to create an environment where people are healthy, secure, and educated.

Back to summer vacation. Kids NEED downtime. It is essential for creativity and imagination, which in turn are essential for innovation. Those places where kids go to school almost all the time create good parrots, not good thinkers. Getting rid of summer vacation will have the net result of making things worse. It will stifle imaginations and drive many of your best students away.

Be the first to like.

Unlike

In-Depth Game Reviews: Mathblaster

Posted on by
Reply
Approximate Reading Time: 2 minutes

When I was working on my PhD (2003-2008), I found it very hard to find any decent reviews of educational games. There are plenty of reasons for this, including:

  1. Teachers aren’t, for the most part, gamers and so really have no idea what makes a good game.
  2. The culture of Education does not foster critical reviews, only accolades. As a result, even bad games often get good reviews.
  3. Most educational game reviews are focused on the technicalities of using the game (how easy is it to install, and the like) and really don’t say much about the game or the gameplay.
  4. Reviews rarely mention what is possible (perhaps because the reviewers aren’t trained in tech and so don’t actually know what’s possible).

I am not a hard-core gamer, but I DO play digital games; I DO know technology; I DO know about design (having designed and built many different things from clothing, jewelry, and buildings to programs, websites and instruction); I DO know about teaching; and I ALSO know Education.

I’m also not afraid to say what I think.

So, I will add reviews as I find time (unless someone wants to pay me for this, in which case I might be convinced to do more). The focus is on things that claim to be educational, and this includes games AND simulations, because ALL GAMES ARE SIMULATIONS.

These are not your typical reviews. They are in-depth and look at the game’s design as well as its educational aspects. These are not efficacy or validity studies and these are also not studies that interview, question, or observe people using these games. My unique background and extensive experience in both technology and education give me a distinctive perspective. These reviews examine and analyze the games themselves as independent educational objects using several different approaches.

You will find the first review on my Serious Games Pathfinder. I did that game that so many in the games industry love to hate, and so many teachers say is great….

Math Blaster

1 person likes this post.

Unlike

Why can’t EdTechs get along with IT, and how that effects Education

Posted on by
Reply
Approximate Reading Time: 3 minutes

Why do so many people in Ed Tech denigrate people who actually know tech? Isn’t knowing tech supposed to be a good thing? Do people with Education degrees feel that they are somehow better than the rest of us because they are formally trained in Education? I often get the impression they look down their noses at those of us who are not formally trained in Ed, and who still try and teach what we know. Or is there something else going on? Do Ed Tech’s feel exposed when they have to deal with people who may understand the technology they that is their stock in trade better than they do?

Continue reading →

Be the first to like.

Unlike

Rare Breeds

Posted on by
1
Approximate Reading Time: 2 minutes

For those who are unaware of this issue (that’s MOST people these days) there are a great many breeds of domestic livestock that are in danger of vanishing. That’s right folks, cows, sheep, chickens, and the like come in various breeds, just like dogs. They have different talents and temperaments, AND they carry genes that don’t exist (AT ALL) in our currently popular breeds. We may not need the gene for four horns (as in the Jacob sheep) , but if we let those genes vanish, we have no idea what else we are loosing.

Over the millenia, people all over the world developed various breeds of every farm animal known to man. Each breed has particular strengths and talents, often rising to the challenge of its particular geographic location (no food, too cold, too hot, too wet, too dry, too windy, ,…). Unfortunately, most of them don’t take well to the kinds of agri-business factory farming practices that are so popular in the West now. Some, like most of the draft horses, simply lost their livelihoods to the relentless march of progress.

You might not think it’s a big deal that 95% of all the cattle in North America are Holsteins. You might not even think it’s a big problem that 95% of all those Holsteins can trace their ancestry back to just a couple of bulls. But that doesn’t say much for genetic diversity.

Here’s the problem: What if some fatal disease crops up for which Holstiens with this particular genetic makeup have no resistance? Can you guess what will happen? I can tell you what will happen. The West’s supply of milk, cheese, yoghurt, and veal will vanish. This is serious. If we don’t preserve other breeds of dairy cattle, we will have nothing to use to rebuild. Nada. Done.

That’s not the only problem. We are so arrogant in our belief that we understand genetics that we don’t even consider the possibility that some of these old breeds might be carrying genetics that we will want in the future. Want a dairy cow that can make it on drought-stricken, parched land? Well, your 20-gallon-a-day Holstein sure isn’t going to survive on that. But a Canadienne might.

Land too wet? Holsteins will develop foot problems and hack up the earth (they’re HUGE), but a Kerry won’t.

I think there’s value in preserving the animals (not just their genetic code) so that if one day, we discover we could really use something with those traits, we have it.

For more on Rare Breeds click here (Rare Breeds Canada).

And here (American Livestock Breeds Conservancy).

Be the first to like.

Unlike

My Stampede Experience

Posted on by
Reply
Approximate Reading Time: 3 minutes

The Calgary Stampede, called the “Greatest Outdoor Show on Earth, started this Friday. It is one of the things for which we are world famous. It always starts on Friday with a parade. People in Calgary get time off work to go to that parade.  The whole city gets involved – stores are decorated; people dress up (you can still always tell who the real cowboys are – they’re the ones whose boots are worn-in). It’s also known as the world’s richest rodeo. Serious money.

And then there are the trademark Pancake Breakfasts (I hear there’s even an iphone app now to help you find places to get free breakfasts).

For ten days, businesses and groups all over the city provide free pancakes, sausages, and coffee. For anyone. Now THAT’s a friendly town.

Many of the locals love to hate the Stampede. I’ve never understood that. It may be kind of hokey sometimes, but, hey, no place else in the whole world has this. That’s something.

I’m sure there will be plenty of articles and posts about the kinds of experiences many people have at the the Stampede: from the midway, to the free concerts, the Indian Village, rural craft and cooking contests, to the “As-Seen-On-TV” salesmen (and women) in the Big Four Building, to the Super-Dogs shows several times a day. This isn’t about those.

Over the years I have experienced the Stampede in a large variety of ways. When I was still living at home, my step-father took me and my mom to watch the Chuck Wagon races. I did not, of course, get to go on rides or experience the midway because he was not interested in that. For a few years after I moved out I would go ‘stampeding’ with friends. We always had a blast.  I remember when they first started to do ‘midnight madness’, where they kept the midway open all night. Even in the rain (there’s ALWAYS rain).

When my kids were little, we sought out pancake breakfasts and became familiar with the kids’ rides. During that time I also worked part-time at Butterfield Acres Farm. Among other things, they provide petting zoos and pony rides, and the stampede is one of the busiest times of the year for that. My stampede experience then consisted of getting up at ungodly hours to pack petting zoos off to stampede breakfasts, rain or shine. Our job was to keep the animals safe, the people happy, and to keep the kids from wiping too much pancake syrup on the goats. Poo on the shirt was Mom & Dad’s responsibility.

Then there was a long time where my stampede experience consisted of watching my husband take the kids (and usually a few extras) down to the grounds for the day. I only rarely came along and will forever be grateful for all those days off at home alone.

Last year we did something a little different. I’ve long thought that the agricultural part of the stampede is getting smaller and smaller and last year we had a chance to help change that just a little. Through various connections we were invited to bring some of our critters down to the Stampede as part of the Rare Breeds display.

(for more on rare Breeds, see my next post)

We brought some of our ducks and geese.

It’s the first time I’ve ever seen the Stampede as an “insider”. Sure, it’s not the same kind of inside-view that the Chuckwagon folks get, and it certainly not the same inside-view that the Stampede Showband (marching band) gets. But it is an insider view nonetheless. I kind of enjoyed it, so we’re doing it again. I met some fine people, and had fun talking to ‘the public’ about our critters.

If you’re down on the grounds tomorrow (Tuesday) or Wednesday, drop on by the agribuilding and come find us!

Be the first to like.

Unlike