Technology is often seen as a panacea by educators, and the current move towards 21st Century Learning seems to have solidified this in policy, at least in B.C. However, there are a few areas where technology in education may be having detrimental effects.

The engagement and understanding of nature and our place in the world is for me the most serious of these areas. The general theory behind using technology in education, particularly immersive, gaming technology, is that the students have skills in these areas already and by including them in the learning process they are able to engage students, personalize their learning and teach them valuable skills for the future of work. I do not disagree with these theories, but I am concerned at what gets left out when we favour technology.

Richard Louv coined the term “Nature Deficit Disorder” . It is not an official clinical condition, but has gained support from many in the health and education worlds. Louv claims that while technology may develop certain skills in children, it is not capable of producing fully rounded humans. He is also afraid that we, as a society, are telling kids that the future is technology and nature is in the past. Despite being mostly anecdotal, Louv’s work is an important message for B.C. as we consider what direction we should move education. We must include significant time and opportunity for young people to explore nature both in a structured and unstructured way. If not, there is a serious risk that humans may lose their connection to their environment, and thus never truly understand its value.

A big concern of allowing children to experience nature is borne out of fear. Fear of what evil people may be lurking in the woods, ready to steal our young. However, Professor Stephen Pinker would argue differently. He states that life now is less violent than at any time in history. Most statistics support his theory, in B.C. Crime Rates recently reached a 30-year low. Despite this, the media would have us believe that this is not the case. In fact, Canadian children are 3 times more likely to suffer assault by a member of their own family than by a stranger.

There are solutions to this problem. Many organizations exist to encourage young people to engage with nature. The Duke of Edinburgh Award program includes an ‘Adventurous Journey’ section which normally involves experiences in the outdoors. They claim that 75% of award participants have developed a greater appreciation of the environment. The Environmental Youth Alliance works to encourage young people to engage in the sustainability of their communities. Many community centres also offer programs and trips for young people to get outside.

We need to be aware of the potential risks of our policies as well as the benefits. For every decision which turns our students’ attention towards technology, turns it away from nature. Whether or not the future of education lies in greater technology I do not know. What I do know is that we will always need an appreciation of nature, and that we cannot develop an appreciation without frequent, direct experience.

However, it seems to me that there are a number of misguided positions from different key players: the government is trying to maintain a centralized control over curriculum, resources and policy, and the unions are trying to limit the power to judge teachers on performance.

The government has moved itself into a difficult position. It launched the Neighbourhood Learning Centres project in 2008. It champions increased parent choice, specialized schools, public-private partnerships and the like. However, it also is enforcing centralized funding, standardized curriculum, and compulsory testing. It seems to have misunderstood that education is not a commodity that can be measured the same way as a business (for example, by measuring profit). Equally, true community education only needs to satisfy the community it serves. There does not need to be any external measure, check or input. The community itself will do the measuring, judging and adjusting.

Similarly, the unions are seemingly in favour of community schooling in principle. They see the concept as one which may move control of education from the central provincial government to the teacher or principal, who can make decisions that benefit their students specifically. However, their aversion to accepting the differences in teacher quality will stymie any attempts to secure more control for the individual teacher. Any teacher or principal in a school is able to recognize the good teachers from the bad; they just can’t do anything about it currently. The process of discipline has been so politicized that teachers only need to make sure they don’t physically or emotionally abuse students and they can keep their jobs. In a true community school situation, the parents and other community members will be able to identify the weaknesses of the teachers and principals involved. It is only the scale, distance and complexity that are currently involved in disciplining teachers that prevents more parents from persevering in having teachers suspended.

What community schools need:
• Openness, so that the community can see the work that goes on
• Self-criticism from all involved, so that mistakes are accepted and learned from
• Autonomy from abstract interference, so that the specific and different needs of each community can be met

This can be achieved through a publically funded and socially fair structure.

We do not need to equate parent choice with expensive public schools. Nor do we need to equate teacher accountability with free-market ruthlessness. If we devolve responsibility and funding control to principals, they can meet parent choice more easily. Also, if teachers are truly vital to society (as their self declared status of ‘professionals’ suggests), then they should also be chosen by the society they serve.

Fair does not mean equal. The utilitarian structure we currently have leads to an average system.

As with most debates, I feel that there has been a polarization of views created by comments on articles, blogs and sensationalist reporting. This post will attempt to find a middle ground between the two sides. Can we take something valuable from both?

One of the central themes in Confucianism is based around the bonds between people. This sets out the responsibilities and respect that each person should show towards another. In particular, parents should show benevolence towards their juniors; juniors should show reverence towards their elders. This theme is found throughout Asian culture and has some very positive impacts on their society. Perhaps the role of the teacher in BC can regain some of the respect that the position demands. Teachers, and adults in general, are ‘Senseis’, which translates ‘born before’. This means that the wisdom and knowledge gained from experience is a valuable commodity that young people should respect.

This view of adult as expert conflicts with the teacher as facilitator which is the situation proposed by those who support 21st Century Learning. However, there are many elements of ‘Western’ education that is very beneficial. For example, free play and student-led learning can help develop create creativity and divergent thinking. These abilities are essential for helping solve 21st century problems. Also, the teamwork gained from participating in sports, drama and other group activities (something shunned by Chua) develops social skills that help the student negotiate the workplace, personal relationships and general social interactions.

In my opinion, younger students benefit most from structured and teacher-led environments. This can include time for free play, but essentially relies on the wisdom and experience of the teacher. As the student matures, the need to forge their own path becomes important. Here, a gradual switch to more student-led activities with the teacher as a guide. Most parents recognize this transition and adjust the responsibilities they give their children accordingly. Education would do well to follow a similar strategy.

21st Century learning is the buzz phrase being thrown around education in BC at the moment. It is a conglomerate of many various pedagogical ideas. Most commentators on the subject consider the integration of technology, meta-cognitive ability, critical thinking and creative problem solving as essential to 21st Century Learning. Read some evidence here

Young people seem to agree that this is the direction in which they would like education to go. Students want to be engaged with real-world problems, use current technology and feel intellectually challenged. They want to collaborate, they want to get constructive feedback, and they want strong working relationships with teachers, other adults and the global community. Read what they have to say

It seems to me that both educators and students want the same thing.

Why is it a good idea?

21st Century Learning gains its credibility from the belief that the world is changing, and education should change in turn. Those that hold this belief argue that the world’s current problems such as climate change, poverty and international security are complex and require a different approach than 20th century problems. They quote Einstein: “We cannot solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.”

How do we achieve it?

In my mind, there are three key areas that need to change in order for 21st Century Learning to be successful: teachers, the curriculum, and the institution of schools. No small task.

Our teachers should become consultants of learning rather than fountains of knowledge. A consultant does have expert knowledge, but doesn’t pour that knowledge into the client; instead, they use the knowledge to guide. Teacher assessment should be constructive rather than final (known as formative rather than summative). As we all know, the lessons we learn the best are the ones we learn ourselves.

Our schooling should become more flexible: students should be able to control their time, their method of work and the physical nature of the school building itself. Through a different interaction with their teachers and peers, a move can be made towards mastery and intrinsic gratification rather than external, abstract assessment.

Finally, our curriculum should be problem-based rather than knowledge based. These problems would create genuine real-world purpose for the student, as opposed to the artificial purposes of exams, marks and graduation.

What are the problems?

All these grand ideas often cause concern among traditionalists and politicians. If we don’t test students, how can we know they have learned? If schools don’t have set rules, how will young people learn structure? And if teachers are not the source of knowledge, where do students get their information from? These are valid concerns, but the stagnation that exists as a result of this fear of change has the potential to cause serious damage to education.

The essential elements of motivation are: autonomy, purpose and mastery. Autonomy can be achieved through self-directed learning. Purpose can be achieved by project-based learning (problem solving) and mastery can achieved through formative assessment.
Paradigm shifts are never easy. They involve a step into the unknown and, perhaps, failure.

It seems, at first glance, to be a happy medium between traditional and progressive education. Students should be ‘competent’ in the usual subjects, have the skills to ‘work effectively’, and act ‘in accordance with the laws…of a democracy’. Similarly, students should also ‘act in principled ways’, ‘think critically’, and be capable of ‘problem-solving’.

But are these students educated to know what to do when acting in a principled way contradicts the laws of a democracy? Or, are they encouraged to think critically about the content of their academic subjects?

I would argue that BC education is at a crucial junction where we are torn between leading the way in progressive education suitable for future needs, and maintaining a traditional system that supports an essentially modernist society.

CBS recently documented the new future of work that the millennial generation is fashioning. It contains many indictments of young people; their lack of discipline, their inability to take criticism, and much more. However, the documentary also brings to light the great progress that can only be made when new ideas are injected into a stale environment. Those managers that have learned to harness the skills and ingenuity of the ‘millennials’ have benefitted greatly. The skills that are desired for 21st century businesses (and are required to solve 21st century problems), are the skills that fall under the ‘progressive’ heading in the BC Ministry of Education graduate attributes list: critical thinking, problem-solving, social responsibility, and so on.

We should be doing more to move towards these goals, and away from the traditional.

Please comment with your thoughts on how best to achieve this

On the other side of the world a group of gamers are playing Counter Strike, a first-person-shooter game that is very realistic and graphically violent. Counter Strike is precisely the sort of game that has been marked a negative influence on young people by concerned parents, teachers and politicians. However, these gamers are not children hidden away in their bedrooms; they are part of a study into the potential benefits of computer games on cognitive ability. They are part of Paul Kearney’s research at Unitec in New Zealand. His findings suggest that people who played the game eight hours per week improved their multi-tasking skills by up to 2.5 times when measured using a U.S. Military test. This has important implications for education, specifically online education. Kearney asks “Given these results, could immersive, 3D educational online environment[s] help students learn more effectively [?]”

James Gee, Professor at the University of Madison-Wisconsin, has produced some of the most widely read material on this topic. He argues that not only do computer games develop valuable skills; they teach these skills more effectively than traditional methods. The world is full of large, complicated problems that require the application of high-level skills such as patience, multi-angle thinking and strategy. Traditional, over-simplified learning tasks do not prepare young people for this future. Gee’s research has made many educators consider the benefits of using computer game formats to deliver learning. Computer game technology has the potential to deliver traditionally difficult to teach skills such as critical thinking and meta-cognition. Many high school students do not critically consider the effectiveness of their learning strategies, and as a result often struggle in the early years of university where external support from a teacher structure is limited. In contrast, the same students demonstrate these skills in completing computer games, especially strategy and role-play games such as SimCity, Civilization and Jagged Alliance. Gee believes that there is great potential if we can harness the traits of computer games and apply them when designing and delivering education.

These studies generate serious questions about the role of education and educators. The evidence suggests that when using technology young people are fully capable of using high-level strategies without direct instruction. Furthermore, we have seen proof that by using this technology, the young people are improving a variety of cognitive abilities.

The results of a recent survey by Project Tomorrow, a non-profit educational research organization, suggest that the public is ready to embrace game-based learning. In a 2007 survey 51% of students surveyed felt that gaming technologies in education would “make it easier to understand difficult concepts”. 50% felt that this technology would make them “more engaged in the subject”. Teachers also saw the potential of gaming technology in education, 65% felt that it would help “address different learning styles” and 40% thought gaming technology would help “develop problem solving and critical thinking skills”. However, only 11% were currently incorporating gaming technology in their teaching. Project Tomorrow identifies what they call a “digital disconnect” between students and teachers. While it is inevitable that the education system lags behind the latest consumer technology the lag can be reduced. A shift in thinking and focus is all that is required.

Those involved in education need to embrace these possibilities and look to this interaction with computers as a model for designing educational programs. The speed of societal change is rapid and the outcome of this is a complex world. We need today’s young people to be able to take on difficult problems, think non-linearly and be self-aware and self-critical. All of these skills can be developed if we abandon our addiction to traditional teaching and learning methods and provide the funding to bridge the divide between the potential and the reality of educational technology.

I feel similar frustration when investigating the education system. I read about entrenched and ineffective practices. I read about new, interesting ideas that are beaten down by any one of the numerous stakeholders who are mostly interested in maintaining the status quo. While the state of education may not seem as critical as the state of the food industry, the long term damage is great.

If only we could see the negative effects of the failing education system as clearly as the negative effects of the failing health system.

Jamie Oliver is a radical actor. He locates himself in the eye of the storm, and tries to enact as much change as possible. He has been successful in a way that gradual, slow political change has not been. In the UK, his trial district has demonstrated improved attendance and academic performance after implementing his new menu (Belo and James, 2009).

Jamie Oliver clearly demonstrated the potential of radical ideas.

One amusing afterthought. Nearly all of the stakeholders who originally tried to shoot Jamie Oliver down began changing their outlook pretty quickly once observing the success and popularity of Oliver’s show. I don’t enjoy being cynical, but this example is too obvious to ignore.

I read people complaining about the unions. I read about teachers complain about being undervalued. I read parents complaining about cutbacks and class sizes. I hear politicians warning that improving services means increasing taxes. What is missing?

What is missing is any radical comment on the issue. The aim of this post is not to repeat the same old dialogue, but throw out some challenging questions that hopefully will provoke some genuine discussion rather than simply provide commentators the opportunity to copy and paste the same blog response into another location.

Firstly, let’s truly ask ourselves the most important question: why do we want our young people to be educated?

Secondly, why do we think that government is the best power to provide this education?

Finally, let’s think if are there any other approaches to education that may prove more efficient but as effective?

What do you think?

Imagine how annoyed you would be if you were working hard, and in the middle of a project when your boss tells you to stop and switch to a completely different task. That would be frustrating. Now imagine he did this 5 times every day. We do this to our children every day of their school lives, for 13 years. The transition to patient, long-term work must be difficult for them when they leave the structured work of school behind. Very few education institutions have the courage to try a different strategy.

Next, imagine all of your coworkers were exactly the same age as you, apart from your boss, who is twice your age. How many valuable learning experiences would you miss? You would be without the benefit of those who had gone before. Also, as is the case in most districts, imagine all of your coworkers were the same ability. Who would you learn from? In a classroom full of 31 people, only one is the official teacher. But what about the unofficial learning experiences younger students would gain from interacting with older students? What about the valuable learning that the older students would gain from teaching the younger ones? Most of the teachers and educators I know will claim that they understand their subject much better after having taught it for a while. Equally, one of the most difficult parts of teaching is identifying the level of understanding that each student has. Honesty, openness and good communication are essential to discover this. It is highly probably that young people demonstrate these traits more readily with their peers than with a teacher. So it would make sense that young people teaching each other would be an excellent strategy to try. However, very few programs emphasize this. The teacher as the imparter of knowledge still remains strong, despite contrary evidence and encouragement from educational researchers.

Finally, imagine yourself in a meeting with your boss on the first workday in January. She asks you to think about the upcoming year, to imagine the work you will be doing (but have no real concept of). She then tells you that 50% of your pay will depend on a single day’s performance. She also tells you that this will be in 9 months time. Your entire year will be spent preparing for this day. As a teacher, this would equate to me being assessed on the strength of a single lesson’s teaching. How many different external forces may affect me on that day? I may feel sick, I may have recently had difficulty sleeping, or perhaps I am distracted by a personal problem? None of these individual elements would be taken into consideration. Unless school is meant to prepare our young for a single day’s effort, some time in the future, then it seems to be mismatched with reality.

Now, many in education use the utilitarian efficiency argument. They will say, “There is no better solution”, “this is how it’s always been done” or “it’s the fairest way”. None of these arguments are necessarily incorrect. However, they do not strive for perfection in the system; they make do with the middle point of all the various demands placed on large scale education.

Why does this happen? Behavioural economist Dan Ariely researches the irrational behaviour that exists in our society. His lectures on TED.com are a great insight into the mis-workings of the mind. Ariely recounts an example where, when in hospital with severe burns, he met resistance to change amongst the nurses. After years of painful bandage changes, he started researching the psychology of pain. It turns out that he was right to question the nurses’ intuitions. However, when Ariely confronted them with this information years later, they had two comments that stood out to him. First, they said that the removal of bandages was also painful for the nurses. Secondly, they felt that the methods they used were the best ones (even though Ariely had found different). Ariely’s conclusions from this are important to all of us. He finds that most humans are unwilling to test their intuition if it is complex or painful. As a result, the intuition may well remain as the chosen strategy despite not being the optimum.

We are not talking about change for change’s sake. Most commentators will argue that the education system is significantly broken, and requires fixing. We just need to have the courage to make complex and painful choices.