Awesome For All

A professor told my class that from the Sputnik launch forward that public education science classes taught all students as if they were scientists in training. This same professor also showed a graph on the overhead that less than five percent of collage graduets received a degree in the sciences. If technology in the classroom is approached in the same way it will fail. We will fail our students. One of the themes I hoped to convey is using technology in the classroom should transform the ways students should interact with each other, their teacher, and above all else the world.

Swain and Edyburn cite research that home computer use is statisticly insignificant along socially economic boundaries. I have some background in education and science research so I know that the opposite position can also site equally valid research. Despite the circumstances there will be students with limited access to technology. How does a teacher proceed. As I once read, equality means that someone will have to give something up. What can I do?

(PS - Sorry for the epic sounding last post, but it sounded really cool at the time.)

There are ways of getting computers into the classroom, or ways of students being able to take their work with them. Some of these methods could be very educational to the students in the proper context. It can also provide means to equalize technology access at home. In order to do so I MUST know my students, where they come from and the environment they live in. If computers or other technology is the right tool for the right job then it is my duty to create access for each of my students by partnering them and myself with organizations like FreeGeek or opening my classroom before and/or after school.

Both article claim that profficancy in technology is a requirement for obtaining quality jobs in the future economy. This I agree with in the fullest. I was a computer lab attendant at Portland State University so I know how much further we need to go.

Limiting the use of technology because of the access of a few students own limited access is a disservice. How many Larry Pages or Bill Gates or Steve Jobs will never materialize if technology is implemented in my classroom. Not everything needs to be grand scale corporate success. Make Magazine recently ran a blog post on the hobbytrepreneur, hobbyists of the mechanical or electronic engineering sort running successful small businesses online. Technology can be a means to exposing students to concepts and areas that they are interested in that might not be available otherwise.

To paraphrase two Frederick Douglass quotes, it is more easy to build a strong child than fix a broken man and that reading is the way to freedom. Education is the pathway our inheritors will better their lives. Our moral imperative is to pave these pathways for our students, our future, the ones who will be paying for our Social Security checks when we retire. It is by our stewardship that we will be creating our future and saving us from ourselves. Before us in each and every class is a nexus of almost infinite possibility. We are the keepers of Humanity.

So what are we going to do about it?

Helm of Learning, +10 Intelligence

"Fun from games arises out of mastery. It arises out of comprehension. It is the act of solving puzzles that make games fun," wrote Raph Koster in A Theory of Fun. What make games fun is learning. This raises a question. If learning is fun, then what is going so wrong in our schools? As teachers and administrators we can learn a lot from games and game design. The modern form with most relevance to our students are video games.

My experience with education software and games is somewhat limited. Currently I have no idea what products are available on the market. I come from the days of Oregon Trail and Amazon Trail. I recently visited a teacher who used a modifies racing game that students used to collect physics data and the video was projected so the whole class could watch. Some games have come a long ways.

When it comes to learning most educational games miss the mark. They attempt to be teacher replacements and, in conjunction with poor game design, students do not learn. Nothing can replace a skilled teacher. It is their discretion to find the right tool for the job and to implement them in ways to promote student success. This may involve video games, it may not.

Gee's paper, Good Video Games and Good Learning, resonates with the question I posed above. Teachers can, and should, approach the problem the same way a game designer would. Remove the unfun elements. Gee hit the nail on the head with the comparison to biology class. A current paradigm for inquire learning in science is for students to do science and create their own relevant knowledge. All sixteen points raised are things I already value in education or learned from reading A Theory of Fun.

My current collection of games would better serve social studies or language class. The old Maxis games of yore, such as SimEarth, SimLife, and SimAnt, could work, but their age might make them inaccessible to many students. Some no longer work with modern computers. Yet we should not limit ourselves to video games. Board games and table top role playing games all have great potential to be used in the classroom as well while still fulfilling Gee's sixteen point paper. Learning is fun. It can be argued that games go too far into entertainment, but is that not the point?