This book is the product of the Invisible Learning project, which since its inception, we have called for the identification of areas of learning that have been neglected or otherwise not visible, and incorporate them into a broader meta-theory –or, a proto-paradigm– which we call Invisible Learning. Throughout this new book, we review research studies by thought leaders and the World Bank, OECD, and other institutions. In particular, we look into the invisibility of technologies and the formation of digital skills within the perspective of educational policy and practice. We tie this into the Society 1.0 – Society 3.0 framework, and also introduce some tools (i.e., normative forecasting) that can help build education that’s relevant for the future.

Finally, we discuss Invisible Learning from the perspectives of other authors and contributors to the project. Our approach is to generate a “source code” for an open dialogue between formal learning and learning that knows no time and space limitations. More than anything, Invisible Learning is an invitation, and we look forward to broadening the conversation in the upcoming months.

Stay tuned!

The Knowmads (NL) are launching an interesting social entrepreneurship experience in Western Asia. I’m sharing their release in its entirety because I believe this is a worthwhile learning and praxis opportunity for developing Knowmads:

Theme: Social Entrepreneurship
This summer course is all about experiencing the Knowmads way of working. We will work with you, in a team of minimal 15 and maximum 25 internationals, on a project in Israel and/or Palestine. The project we are going to create will connect to youth, community and entrepreneurship and will have an impact for you, for the community and for the world. We call it a win-win-win project.

The 4 weeks
The project takes in total four weeks. In the first week we will get to know each other and investigate each other’s talents. By doing this we create a team that will really rock the boat. The second week we will start with creative and innovative idea development for the project. The third and fourth week we will work together on the project and make the things happen planned in the first two weeks.

Who are we looking for?
We are looking for outstanding, creative and highly motivated young people willing to undertake an entrepreneurial challenge. There is not a specific or ideal type of candidate for this course. You have to be willing to work with your head, heart and hands.

What does it cost?
The price of the course is Euro 2000,-. This is inclusive all the material, travelling in Israel/Palestine and housing. This price is exclusive travelling to (and from) Tel Aviv, food and drinks.

Why to choose Knowmads Summer Course?

• The course is a highly specialised programme, with a strong focus on a real life case.
• There are networking opportunities with entrepreneurs / companies / municipalities / NGO’s, also after the programme
• You have the chance for transferring successful ideas to your own country.
• You can challenge yourself and be coached in this
• There is didactic quality guaranteed by Knowmads; 3?6 Knowmads will facilitate the course.
• You will work in an International atmosphere in a truly multicultural environment.

How to sign up?

• Apply before the 24th of June 2010.
• Before the 26th of June we will confirm your registration; we will only start our course with a minimum of 15 applicants.

Practicalities

• The spoken and written language of the course is English
• During the course we will work six days a week
• The tuition fee needs to be paid before the 10th of July. We will provide details later.

Info: send an e-mail to Pieter@knowmads.nl or call 00 31 6 814 90 700.

Much of the recent conversation has been on defining what is invisible learning, and whether we need invisible learning in an already crowded ecosystem of ideas. For example, in a comment posted at Blog Nodes Ele, Juan M. Fernández wrote:

Están bien todas estas propuestas pero por momentos tengo la sensación de que están cayendo en una retórica autocomplaciente y poco práctica. ¿Dialogan entre ellas o prefieren ignorarse? ¿No ha llegado el momento de tomar alguna de estas propuestas y desarrollarla?

He is right. Nobody should get self-congratulatory about adding new ideas or terminologies to an already crowded ecology of conceptualizations. What I feel is important, however, is how we approach the interconnectedness and blending of many of the key ideas and concepts that, to a great extent, were isolated. This is why invisible learning is valuable:

Invisible learning includes not only non-formal and informal education, but also addresses the need to recognize, understand and leverage the essential meta space between non-formal/informal education and formal education. Moreover, as Cristóbal Cobo points out, invisible learning is also inclusive of new social and cultural interfaces within this new paradigm of learning (i.e., edupunk). This means that we do not need to rely on new technologies to teach old ideas, but rather we can fuel new learning by tapping into our inherent imagination, creativity and innovation capacities that thrive in invisible learning’s spectrum of possibilities.

The Education Futures timeline of education

1657 – 2045

By John Moravec (Updated May 30, 2010)

This timeline of the history of modern education provides not only a glimpse into the past and present, but plots out a plausible future history for human capital development. The future history presented is intended to be edgy, but also as a conversation starter on futures for education and future thinking in human capital development.

Although this timeline is largely U.S.-centric, the trends impacting it are global, especially as we look to the future. Please consult the glossary, below, for additional information regarding many of the themes presented. As always, we invite your feedback and suggestions for further development!

To share this timeline in your blog or website, insert the following code:

<div><iframe src="http://www.educationfutures.com/flashtimeline/index.html" width="610" height="310" scrolling="no"
frameborder="0"></iframe><p>Source: <a href="http://www.educationfutures.com/resources/timeline">
Education Futures</a></p></div>

Or, to insert a smaller version (500px wide), click here for the code.

My experience and common sense says no, although I wish it were a general truth.

Do kids need to learn about games in school?

Yes, if we want to guide them in optimal usage, and maybe learn something from them.

This post looks at formal and informal learning and begins to make connections between what is done in school: formal learning and what is done out of school: informal. The importance of this inquiry is to look at how we can recruit these informal processes to create leverage and development in formal learning situations. What is generally true for informal learning is that the learners are learning spontaneously and then moving to the next experience. This spontaneous learning is often thought to be tacit, or below the conscious awareness. One may be able to do a thing, but may not be able to describe the process they created, much less know a name for it. Conversely, in classroom, or formal learning experiences, we hope that students are being guided through learning experiences with structured reflection to give the process and elements of the process a formal name: like reading is a process.

There are four pieces to this post:

1. Are the kids just born with gaming skills?
2. Should we teach with them? Games as embodied informal models of scientific reasoning and the role of play.
3. Why we should recruit culturally relevant knowledge like games and other out of school experiences?
4. What happens when we honor the culture, language, and experience outside of the classroom by bringing it into the classroom to connect with formal academic culture, language, and experience?

Are the kids just born with gaming skills?

Kids today are not born with digital code imprinted in their DNA. They have to learn the language of technology, just like adults.

There is a digital divide between kids that have the new technologies and those that do not, and there is also a divide between those that have the games, and those that have the games and the people to help them understand how to use them.

I have documented this with video after spending many hours in a video game after school program in Hopkins, Minnesota. What I discovered is that most of the kids did not know what to do when they were stuck in a complex game. We were playing Metroid Prime, and until Darius came, none of the boys could figure out how to get into the first air lock. Metroid Prime is kind of a complicated game. But that is what makes it worthwhile. It is an open environment game that demands that you make sense of the world and find your way. There is a hint system in the game, but for some reason, it was turned off. That was very convenient for me to watch and see what they would do—not that I had anything to do with that. The cool thing is that there are many ways that a person can get through each problem. This allows for expression through play—an aesthetic. This open-ended approach to game play was discussed in my talk at the Professionalism in Practice conference. In the slides from that conference, I described the idea of non-linearity in game design. That is, you cannot necessarily predict the steps in a progression in a game. Even a simple one like Chutes and Ladders. Because of all of the chutes and ladders being dictated by the spinner, probability makes strategizing futile. Kids can begin to estimate and hope for the spinner to land on six, but they cannot plan for it either. This might be a difficult pill to swallow for educators, but when you assess for nice and tidy answers, are you assuming that life is full of nice and tidy answers? This is the challenge, there are many similarities in life, experience, and people, but it is variation that allows us to prosper and adapt. If we did not allow for variation, we would have no innovation. We would be living on rails from start to finish.

Back to Metroid Prime

They turned on the game and mashed the buttons on the controller; each taking turns trying to make Samus (the character) do something. It seemed clear to them, in the video footage I recorded, that there must be a way to get into the space station. They figured out how to shoot things, but that was about it besides walking around.

This was different from the genre of game that these kids played regularly. It demanded that they go through the process of elimination in pressing buttons, as well as finding different combinations, and then to do the same thing by pressing things in the game environment. It took patience and a methodical approach to trial and error. But none of the boys had this patience or persistence.

Should we teach with them? Games as informal models of scientific reasoning and the role of play

Well, what is formal scientific reasoning?

Isn’t it hypothesis testing? Isn’t it reduction then looking at different combinations of the reduced elements together working as a system? It is observation, modeling, and testing in and out of context.

It is patience, tolerance for ambiguity, the ability to withhold judgment until a proposition is disqualified through the process of elimination. It is critical thinking. These are elements of complex games as well as scientific reasoning

It seems weird, but in games, kids have to go through scientific process where they tacitly use abductive, inductive, deductive, and analogical reasoning. In essence, they were using informal scientific reasoning. But by tacit and informal I mean that they were making it up as they went and sometimes, they could replicate what they did, and sometimes they just got lucky; and in times past the game held their hand to get them through and made them practice until they got it. Not this time though.

The point is, games are complex and dynamic interactive systems that demand decisions and thinking on your feet. And although games require this, and some kids do enact these formal processes, I am telling you now that this language is not generally viewed in the wild folks. It is taught. And the knowledge is either tacit, in that you can do it but you can’t explain it, or it is explicit, where you have a name for it and you know how it works.

These kids were at an afterschool remedial reading program. And honestly, these kids did not have the informal skills described. They were stuck outside the space station on Metroid Prime. There were no hints to follow and imitate. As much as they all tried , they were getting very frustrated.

It wasn’t until Darius came that they were able to get into the space station. And Darius is the product of the mentorship and modeling his dad provides and the texts he reads to help him

This does not mean that Darius has formal skills. He has tacit skills where he can tell what to do, but does not have a name for the process.

In school, language is important. It is our ability to make a concept or process formalized. That is, something that can be observed and replicated. Learning this kind of language can be arduous. The key to doing this seems to be connecting to the things kids already know and give them hook a to hang it on. In essence, you can think of the experience of school as kind of a cognitive hat rack, where we create terminology and methods that are transparent, generally accepted, and not necessarily descriptive. Ontogeny anyone?

An example of tacit knowledge of a process is reading.

How many of you can define reading right now right here?

Not many, and it is not because you can’t do it, you are doing it, right now as you read. You have to reflect and think about what you are doing. You are decoding symbols and having ideas that are represented by words that you have learned, and in some cases, you are learning new ideas in the context of what you already know. You are formalizing tacit knowledge to explicit, conscious knowledge. Reading is thinking cued by text. The letters tell you what to see and hear in your mind from our common language. You are building a model that is mediated by your memories and experience. In some cases you are creating new ideas through comparison, combination, and reduction, and also making predictions and analogy.

But this is not guaranteed.

How do I know you do this when you read?

We generalize through scientific method, the methods generate this theory of what we do when we read.

Language is how we share formalized systems, and how we create them from tacit experience. A group of people get together, decide what it is and give it a name.

There are a lot of names in school. Just think of how you use academic language. Do you use the word base? How many meanings does it have through the school day?

Kids are consistently asked to develop language from content registers, which are specialized languages from fields and professions in school. The trick is to connect it to what they know—(abduction). They connect through seeing a pattern, such as A created B (deduction), or guessing that a,b,c,d are all connected to some single cause (induction). Do they do this naturally? It seems to be the case in some instances. But it is rare to see it formalized anywhere outside of school. Formalized means that it is a named, observable, replicable, conscious (explicit) process. School is that process of socialization where we negotiate and sometimes learn a new language, and with it, new competencies and new ways of interacting with the world.

Should we teach with games?

I wrote about this a week ago, Yes, games whether they be video games or instruction designed like a game, the learning principles in games provide embodied experience that can be reflected upon and formalized with our monopoly on naming. L earning is really not a big mystery, and games understand play. Play is powerful learning. We know what it looks like, and we tend to create taxonomies and hierarchies. Here is one I made. (Observed stages of play).

After my children were born, I watched both of them become conscious of their limbs, learn how to grasp, learn to manipulate the things they grasped through the motor skills they had developed through trial and error, and then to use tactics to figure out how to make the stuffed dog bark; eventually they began just watch to mom and dad do it; and they became quick studies as they sought mastery of the tools that made mom and dad seem super-powered and oh-so-independent. So they began to develop agency through activity. Ryan & Deci’s self-determination theory complements this with the idea that we seek to belong, to be competent, and have autonomy. This is often created through the ability to act in the world and be respected for what you can do. There is plenty to support this if you read Brian Sutton Smith, you will find him connecting play to Stephen Jay Gould’s evolutionary theory. He makes the case that play and learning go hand in hand, and play has been a necessary part of evolution, as it has created the variation necessary for adaptation.

Sadly, have moved away from play in education, even though we are a play culture. It seems like during the push to have efficient methods for delivering information, we only considered the efficiency of the teacher, and made the teacher the focus rather than being student centered. To be student centered, we might have to move out of the direct instruction model and allow kids to get their hands dirty and have great ideas. And kids do have great ideas. Look at research by Piaget. Look at and read Duckworth’s book called, The Having of Wonderful Ideas, where she found kids able to have great ideas. Ideas that are being consistently rediscovered and are the roots of formal scientific reasoning; The ones we teach as methods for inquiry in most, if not all of our content areas. It is through school and culture we hope to speed up the process. But we have done through using these formal systems that must be memorized abstracted from experience, rather than through discovery and reflection.

What I have found through reading, watching, and reflecting is a process of learning that looks something like these observed stages of play.

This model makes a case for a different kind of instruction in the classroom–one that begins to resemble games rather than someone lecturing at a podium. Students have to be highly motivated to learn in a lecture, unless of course they are learning they don’t like lectures. I am not against lectures, but how am I going to get a real sense of all of the kids learning if I am always talking? The structured interactions and performance as assessment aspects of games allow mastery learning and feedback, and thus much more interaction; interaction is the basis for improvement and self-measure. In trial and error, don’t we act and look for the result? That is the basis of trial and error and until we have some knowledge of the object in context – or systems knowledge. So what if we look at play and how people play as culturally relevant, not only as a teaching method, but as experience we can give to embody and share formalized concepts? That is making what we are doing conscious – moving into the realm of purposeful use of strategies.

People begin with an interest in what a thing is and what it can do. If you recall the film, The Gods Must Be Crazy, indigenous bush people living by older tribal means found a coke bottle that was thrown from a small aircraft. It was used for anything and everything the villagers could think of: carrying water, mashing things into meal, and eventually, even as a weapon.

Without guided instruction, an object may not tell how you may use it, or what you may use it for. In essence, you can shape the tool, and the tool can shape you. It is through culture that our knowledge is transmitted—language, tools, rules, relations, and objects. So what seems basic to all of us, using induction here, is to assume that we are all curious tinkerers. Looking for interesting things to do, and we begin with trial and error based upon prior experience and our ability to reason with analogy—it looks like a hammer, it must be a hammer, thus used like a hammer.

Games understand this, but they are also aware that giving people what they see and experience in everyday life is not an escape. So in order to help us find easy and early success in the game – they do want us to play and buy the sequel, as well as tell others to play it—they build in hints and guides, and simplified training stages, where the game aids you in your tasks so that you feel like you are getting it right away and becoming the king of the thing.

Metroid Prime will lead you through with hints, but as I mentioned, not this time. Darius had experience with this game and was immediately adept at telling the kid with the controller – Chris—what to do next. Where previously the boys had taken the controller back and forth trying out their ideas; the one who had the success would move forward while the others watched and learned—waiting for a turn. Darius was okay with telling them what to do, but he eventually got bored and went to the computers in the back of the room. I let the camera do the recording on the boys playing and followed Darius; he had started looking around with a browser on a computer.

What I found out was that Darius played with his dad when they had weekends together, and that he practiced playing during the week (maybe this was why he was in this remedial reading program). His dad was really into games, and he showed Darius how to get information online as well as how to prepare and apply the information in the text into action. Kind of like reading instructions to that grill, those shelves, or that workbench you bought with all those parts that require assembly. Reading to act is complex–especially when the game or object demands mastery.

Just an aside here, but, do you read the instructions first?

Do you learn about the people and company where you are interviewing before you go in?

Do you Google people before you go on a blind date?

Is that cheating, or being prepared?

How about in a classroom?

Darius used computers and magazines to find walk-throughs, cheats, and other tips on how to get through the games with ease and give him freedom to play with some flair because he had prior knowledge. Thus, he played with an aesthetic: Play worthy of other people viewing it. Play as performance. He had created ideas of what getting through a game should look like. This was probably from watching other players, as well as his dad’s values and excellence—evidently his dad is very good at games.

Darius was supported by his parents through subscriptions to magazines like Game Informer. He had modeled play from his dad as well as through what he read in magazines and on the WWW.

In addition to Darius, I also interviewed a middle school student from Stillwater. He told me he watched g4TV and met regularly with his gamer friends to play multiplayer and single payer games together. They all watched these programs and read the magazines so they would know what were the good games, they also had the chance to see other people playing games, and this showed them what to do, and then practiced so that when they met, they would be able to show what they could do. There was a lot of “lemme try that!”

In a phenomenological study I did, I found that the young woman that was my informant played DDR because it was great fun with her friends, and that she practiced at home so that she could improve each time she met with her group. This was in addition to being in traveling band, International Baccalaureate, track, and soccer! She even shared that she brought the game on a trip to play against other kids in the band in the hotel. She described the way she figured it out as watching, trying, and practicing, and then more of the same.

The big question is, are we tapping into this at school? Can we recruit these experiences to make what we teach more accessible? Can we do it in a similar way?

We can tap into and develop teaching based upon our knowledge of what kids do and like.

And we can learn something from them. And as teachers, learning is something we should enjoy and constantly model. A natural curiosity and inquisitiveness that allows for the formal methods we have been trained with as subject matter experts in all of the content areas.

All we need to do is study, ask, and connect. And what we should be studying are our kids.

Why should we recruit culturally relevant knowledge and experience that can be connected to make tacit knowledge explicit?

There are many studies of people outside of school doing the things we learn in school, but better. I must admit, I have been intrigued by the studies of brazilin street children doing complex mathematics. As I have been reading Carol Lee’s new book, she has been using this research, as well as parallel and complementary research to build a curricular approach she calls Cultural Modeling.
In cultural modeling, we need to see that actions and behaviors outside of school can be just as deep and complex as what we do in school. It is a matter of the teacher deeply understanding their content area facts, processes, and creating contexts for connecting with cultural practices outside of school.

She argues for educators having cultural understanding of knowledge, and asks that we consider structures that encourage participation and connection.

Lee asks, “are we giving poor kids direct instruction because we are convinced this is the only way they can catch up and learn?”

Lee asserts that we must establish routines to get students to persist; students may need help discovering relationships between facts that are memorized and patterns. On page 33, she says that “direct instruction and basic skills instruction are totally insufficient”, and that “a profound lack of understanding of the cultural displays of knowledge in the everyday practices of minority and low income students . . . has led to a pervasive culture of low expectations, to deficit models of student capacities, and to a myriad of misunderstandings within classrooms.”

One of the examples she makes along with the computational abilities of Brazilian street children is called signifying, which is a practice in African American English. You know what that is right? Let me model one that I heard that thought was funny: “your momma so fat, her blood type rocky road!” This is a rapid analogical exchange where insults and ideas are traded based upon representation and quick and clever turns of wit – where the person receiving has to quickly identify what is being signified, use the representation and turn it back on the originator. Lee suggests that this and many other cultural acts could support the most difficult things we do in Language Arts classrooms – identifying patterns and imagery in narrative and interpreting and extending them. Can we analogize this kind of analogical reasoning with our kids in class for books that might reflect their experiences? Can we use games which are even closer to what we do in school?

What Lee seems to be saying, is the same thing I have been trying to say—can’t we learn what the kids like, bring it in, and connect it to traditional academic reasoning structures. Isn’t there a place for new culture in the old canons? What we’re talking about here is good old transfer. Connecting skills from one experience to leverage something new quickly. This seems a much more efficient method than teaching formalized systems and then asking kids to make the connections themselves. They would have to think there is relevance to want to do this.

And why is what we are teaching more important than what kids are doing now? The question has been asked by Michael Apple –Whose knowledge is it?

Who decides what is complex and what is not. There is complexity everywhere. Simplicity is really only in our mind’s ability to abstract and reduce. According to Lauren Resnick (1978, in Lee, pg. 36), complex problems are ones for which the solution path cannot be fully specified in advance and for which there might not be simple right or wrong answers. Isn’t this what I described as a complex game? There are many paths built upon different reasons and experience?

This brings up issues of designing instruction: can it be different, but just as good?

On Friday, I was with a group of teachers and we were going through a mathematics activity where we were asked to give the perimeter of hexagons that were placed in three different series.

The math people created a table, showing how many sides:

1 = 6, 2= 10, 3 = 14 and then predict 6 connected hexagons.

I looked at them and noticed that there were six sides and that each time two were connected, you would add all the sides and subtract the two since they were no longer on the perimeter, so I just blurted an answer without showing my work.

They were a little taken aback, but I explained what I had done. They liked it, but it did not fit with the lesson. If we really worked on connecting it, we would have discovered a nice little equation underneath it (post a comment if you can figure it out)

It was not that they didn’t like it; they wanted to teach a formalized methodology. Because mine was emergent, it caught them off guard. I am an English teacher, what would I be doing with an algorithm anyway?

This was a teachable moment, and our kids are rich with valuable experiences that we can build off of.

So back to games.

They fit Resnick’s definition of complexity.

In fact, they are considered to be complex and dynamic systems.

They demand strategic thinking and planning. To win, and win with an aesthetic, one must build layered strategies, tolerating the ambiguity of each level to apply an appropriate strategy, rather than using the same tactic with every challenge.

This does not seem to come naturally. Kids need to have this modeled and imitate it. And it is. Kids play with adults and other kids who share and learn from each other.

Find out how many of your underachieving boys play video games and ask them to demonstrate them. When I did this with high school seniors, we got a clinic on Madden and NBA. You want complex dynamic games? Try one!

So are the kids digital natives? Not by birth. But they are surrounded by cultural opportunity to learn and use these devices if they are available.

What I have seen is that if kids have any of those digital devices, they must have time and have access to people who use them so that they can participate together. In this way kids become very proficient. But so do adults.

Are these two very different approaches?

It is called leveraging everyday knowledge and tapping into high interest activities like games.

We can use games to build and leverage complex problem solving. We can connect with cultural values, knowledge, and experience that kids bring with them to school, and we can relate them to the formalized systems that we attempt to teach as abstraction.

Making the connection to experience is powerful, and we can do this from multiple perspectives.

What happens when we honor the culture, language, and experience outside of the classroom by bringing it into the classroom to connect with formal academic culture, language, and experience?

I hope to find out from you.

To be is to do

So Do We?

It is just good teaching

Games taught me that modeling environments and taking on the roles are powerful ways to teach and learn.

Piaget talked about roles as assimilation. You try on the role and see what part of the character is you.

Gibson talked about environment and context, with affordances and constraints. What the world gives you for advice, warning, limitation, and opportunity.

These ideas are present in embodiment and how we might contextualize our curriculum as an activity system.

One of the big lessons from games is design. Good learning is by design. A teacher, like a game designer creates the environment where we learn.

We are already attempting to embody what we teach in purposeful ways with Professional Content Magnets in our secondary schools. In Minneapolis we have Automotive, Cosmetology, Medicine, Business, and Fine Arts—just to name a couple. What we often don’t do is to integrate the abstractions of the core competencies from the traditional content areas into the context of the professional development. I have noticed that the many of the magnets still teach school the same way. Students still go to math and use a math text book, and they learn Math the same way they do in Auto as they do in Medical — they just have some specialized classes and placement programs that allow students to specialize.

We often do not teach our content in the context of doing the professional work. We do not find Algebra in the everyday world of Engineering, we teach the formulas as content rather than showing how a formula can be used for building a model for an engineering project. There is a new kind of engineering for schools – reverse engineering.

Some schools and teachers do this when they design their curriculum. There are books on it and we have explored this idea going all the way back to John Dewey .

Can we teach physics with an internal combustion engine? Dewey thought so.

Games ask us to take on the roles and then teach us to do things in the context of that role in the simulated environment.

That is embodiment.

Schools can do this too.

We can structure reflection to connect experience to our abstracted tradition of curriculum to generalize and transfer.

If you are playing as a doctor, you will do the things that doctors do.

And as you are acting like a doctor, the game gives you clues to achieve a win-state, in the form of feedback and performance assessment.

Games provide performance assessment in real time embodied in the context of what a doctor does and how a doctor gets feedback. So you learn to be a doctor by playing in a simulated world as a doctor. In the process, you are assessed on your performance by the game. It is how they keep score!

In games students are scored based upon criteria for performance that is built into the activity. The assessment is the activity.

This is different from taking tests on the content and elements of performance in print based tests and questionnaires. Thorndike anyone?

This is what games do when they are well-designed, and this is what curriculum can do when it takes these steps as well. Good teaching is good teaching, but often our teachers are not given the opportunity or resources to create hands-on experience for their students with the content built into the context of doing in the world. We tried to do this a number of years ago with the Profiles of Learning and Performance Packages here in Minnesota, but we just did not do a good job of helping our teachers do it.

Instead, we are writing a paper about what doctors do, “because this is what we do in English.” We are preparing for a time when you can be a doctor. You must write first in school, and then you can apply to medical school. Why are we withholding the fun?

I am sure you are saying to yourself that this reminds you of apprenticeship programs. And “what about the value of a good liberal arts education?”

I am with you. I originally wanted to be a philosopher! I still try to connect great books with issues we face in society. My own eight grader helped me by telling me that “sonic the hedgehop is like Odysseus Mr. Dubbels, he is trying to get home.” We also made our own version of the Odyssey– studying it to make a game. The kids said that Odyssseus was put off the bus (Poseidon Bus Lines anyone?) for being arrogant and had to walk home in a modern day, urban Odyssey.

Actions speak louder than word when it comes to learning.

And words are what many students’ days are full of: in the texts, in the lecture, in homework.

I like words, but it is important that I have experience to write and read about to connect. Something purposeful and fun.

I am here to tell you, you don’t need a computer to make learning environments like this. You can construct modern Odysseys.

I am not saying that what we are doing in school is wrong. Good teaching is good teaching, and there are many things I like to do and teach that have nothing to do with video games. I am an English teacher, and I like to read. I like to write, and I like big ideas.

Shouldn’t we be considering how we might work to teach the words-words-words-abstraction-as-content curriculum
in a more tangible way, that allows students to use the skill sets of an historian or botanist with reading, writing, numeracy, technology, and scientific reasoning built-in, as a botanist or historian would do it in the context of their job?

Imagine being Indiana Jones. Would you prefer to be Indy on a mission or in the lecture hall? I think I like the whip for jumping over a canyon better than using it as a teacher.

We can teach traditional content areas and standards as elements of embodied practice. Most of us use reading, writing, and numeracy in the context of our professions and recreation, not as we do in English class or Geometry.

When was the last time you took a content-test at work?

Subject matter expertise comes out in situated performance in my experience. Games are actually built to teach and assess through performance. In addition, games demand mastery and continuous improvement in pursuit of winning the game and even provide replay, scoring, and commentary!

What if we built curriculum in the form of games?

Can you imagine getting an instant replay with color commentary like you get in Madden 2007 on your test? In games, you have to perform with enough mastery to move on, or level up. Games do the assessment as part of their programming.

You may be asking now, “But are there games that can do what a text book does?

“What about the teacher?”

My answer: “do you want your kids learning from textbooks?”

Textbooks are great, but limited in what they can present. And they may serve a valid purpose as a reference point for exploring issues in the contexts of analysis, history of what others have done and thought, as well as jumping-off-points for more serious inquiry and investigation—just like the Wikipedia.

Yes, I know, the wikipedia is only as good as the posters, but at least there is discussion and room for published public dissent on the article in the context of the webpage where the information is posted. Can you do this with a text book?

My work as a media specialist gave me an opportunity to take a serious look at what we were doing with books and how we were using them. I was surprised that my library was more of a repository of relics, curiosities, and histories – as well as some great fiction and how-to-books.

What I was thinking as I weeded out geography texts on Yugoslavia and the USSR, was that much of what we purchase in non-fiction texts actually work better on the World Wide Web. In fact, what makes the WWW better is that we can find starting points for research and inquiry like the Wikipedia; we can read a variety of sites that might inform us and create contrast and opposing viewpoints, as well offer a variety of media opportunities in the form of video on demand, live web-camera viewing, links to other sites, community forums for discussion and community, as well as interactive media like games. And the WWW is generally updated. Not like the books on the USSR and Yugoslavia.

We should be moving beyond the static curriculum of text books.

Games can provide the context and action for our content knowledge in a situated context—almost as good as being there.

Games can do this whether they are computer games, or games that use paper, pencil, and dice.

Further, what games do well is provide context and necessitate performance. I am not the first person to say this and many more have said it better. The big idea here is that games represent an opportunity to be in a role, doing things that people in those roles do, in places where they do them, and then get assessed in that performance. A nice book on this – I like books—is David Shaffer’s book and his take on Epistemic Games. What David proposes is that there are beliefs, acts, and contexts for what the professions do.

A game I like that does this is Global Conflicts Palestine. I have been using this game with middle school students in Minneapolis at Richard Green-Central K8 school to teach about being a journalist; teach about issues in Jerusalem that affect us all as a planet; and issues in composition such as thesis and supporting details, the use of data collection, writing to inform, and rhetorical situations like writer’s purpose, audience, topic, and context. The cool thing is, in this game you play the journalist and you deal with these issues as a journalist. And this includes the creation of the articles from informants you have quoted in the game. You have to do the things I teach in English class, but while playing as a journalist.

Yes, Playing. That typically means fun is included there too!

There are still two unanswered questions here:

“What about the textbooks?” and “what about the teachers?”

Texts can tell a story, provide relevant reference, as well as provide models for how we create texts. I do prefer reading fiction from a book. There will always be a place for texts. But should they be our primary tools?

Teachers become coaches, resources, and designers of instruction. They help students through the experience of becoming. Help students set goals. Assist them in connecting their experience and structuring reflection. They become more connected.

These are not new ideas either, but they have not been implemented. Texts and teachers are often the focus of the classroom experience, even though experience and common sense tell us that student learning should be the focus. Teachers can create contexts, structure reflection, and provide resources like text books and other references to further the growth and learning of their students. They become the designers of content systems, instructional environments, or whatever you want to call them. We do need support in this. As teachers, we are not islands or independent states. Administrators, school boards, other teachers, parents, students, schools of education, game companies, philanthropic entities ( my email is below if you are a philanthropic entity) can all help.

And like I said, many of us do this now. We use cooperative learning, projects, performance, experience, and encourage students to have wonderful ideas. And this is what creates knowledge and innovation. What our country was built upon. But maybe we can take this a step further and become student growth centered. Games can help us do that.

In the next entry, I will be going into aspects of games and how they might be used to extend learning time outside of the classroom and bring the lives of our learners in. Games provide a great opportunity for distance learning. My last post will be a description of how I taught with games and some outcomes, and maybe most importantly, how I was able to get the equipment and make it happen. And to get to the point: I had no grants. I had no special resources. I bought no equipment.

Drop me a line if you’d like a PDF of the scanned article!

Abstract

Proponents of critical education and critical pedagogy call on us to question the “oppressor vs. oppressed” relationships that the global mainstream “banking” system of education enforces (see esp. Freire, 2000). This practice produces learners that do not have the knowledge and skills to solve their own problems and maximize their individual potential. Systems thinking is the contextual analysis of an organization or process as a whole (Capra, 1996, p. 30; von Bertalanffy, 1968). A future-oriented, systems approach to the examination and redesign of critical education theory yields a chaordic, coconstructivist metatheory that maximizes each individual’s ontological potential. By building upon an example that employs automated information technology as a mediator in a coconstructivist system, this paper suggests that not only are coconstructivist critical knowledge systems plausible, but the design of the systems themselves need not be designed complexly to exhibit complex, transformative behavior.

Global Leapfrog Education

Volume 2, Number 1 – March 2006

(Submissions are due November 30, 2006)

Global Leapfrog Education (GLE), a new, open access journal, is devoted to exploring how, through education and human capital development, communities can transcend current problems and challenges by empowering themselves with the tools to invent their own futures. GLE publishes articles spanning a wide range of interests related to leapfrog education (viz. change, technologies, knowledge production and innovation, global youth leadership, and futures-oriented philosophies and theories of education).

GLE offers its authors:

• Timely peer review and publication
• Free online publication
• Web-based platform for comments and discussion
• Online manuscript submission and tracking
• International editorial review board

Scholars of all fields are invited to submit articles and reviews on topics in the following areas:

• Accelerating change and related technologies
• Knowledge production and innovation
• Global youth development and leadership
• Futures-oriented philosophies and theories of education

Articles considered for publication are normally between 8 and 25 pages in length. Detailed information regarding author guidelines and the submission process are available online at: http://www.leapfroginstitute.org/journal/index.php/gle/information/authors

Journal Web page: http://www.leapfroginstitute.org/journal

Editorial contacts:

• Arthur Harkins, University of Minnesota, harki001@umn.edu
• John Moravec, University of Minnesota, moravec@umn.edu