Sojourns.

I'll be honest at the risk of being profane: My adventures in teaching absolutely sucked this week. True, my irritation is exacerbated by my watching DML 2012 from far away.  

As much as I want to be a part of the conversation, like most PhD students, I'm teaching this week, and I can't get away from classes to attend.  

As I watch the conversation from DML2012 range from badges and extrinsic motivators to entrepreneurship and play--I'm enthralled at the possibilities for learning and digital literacy.

But what about the generations, currently in school, who are still being imbued and evaluated with antiquated systems: namely, grading.

Grading is the cause of my pain.  It always is.  We can motivate students, but the indoctrination of "evaluation" is hard to shift.  Two scenarios caused me great pain this week, and grading is the source of them.

1.) I am a college-level writing instructor for a group of women (most over 30) who are getting their certification in Early Childhood Education.  Their influence on future generations of learners is invaluable, but because most of them make minimum wage, and are under EXTREME pressure by their employers (who are paying for some of their classes), they can only focus on getting an A in my course.  This pressure exists because the employers are only reimbursed if they get an A.  Needless to say, this made the tone of the course so tense that any learning opportunity was doused by the INTENSE pressure to secure reimbursement (and ultimately their jobs). 

2.) One student in the class turned in a completely plagarized paper.  I immediately found the source, and actually gave her another chance.  When she still didn't fix it, I gave her an F.  She was in denial about the whole situation, but she could only focus on the F grade.  She tried to argue with me about the grade, and I couldn't believe she wasn't more concerned about the fact that she showed no integrity, nor committed an intellectual offense.  

It was all about the grade.  

It all started with this story about Popar toys, using Augmented Reality to create reading experiences for kids.  And I thought, "Wow, I would love to see this!".  So, I sprung for the admission to the Toy Fair in NYC.  No person under 18 was permitted, and I could see why.  A kid would have a coronary!  I almost did a couple of times.  

For the most part, this event is geared toward buyers, but I had some interesting experiences.  First of all, I got to see a demo of Popar!  And I got to speak with the creators about their vision.  Like all toy companies using new media (in this case, Augmented Reality) they have no idea whether or not there has been any gains in education as a result of the product (always a cart before the horse process with a chicken or egg backdrop...).  But they were one of the FEW products using new media with an educational bent.  

Don't get me wrong--I saw a ton of iPads and iPhones and robots.  But, for the most part the iPad was a "companion" to an old favorite (e.g, Scrabble and Monopoly) or being shoved in a rubber ball (?) or a plastic teddy bear like device so that one could hug it the phone?

Good things I saw/noticed:

1.) BOARD GAMES STILL DOMINATE.  Many innovators are still trying to get kids together, and playing communally (or better yet--with their parents!)  Check out these awesome ones:  Seven Ate Nine and Wise Alec.  

2.) Robots are still cool.  This company, Mechatars, is using new media (Internet) to get kids to go outside and play with their friends.  Basically, a child is encouraged to gain points online by going "outside" and playing battle bots with their friends first.  There's a lot of flaws with this idea (kids don't really play with kids in their neighborhoods as much as they used to; most kids need a parent to get them online; might be too much "go between").

3.) A lot of companies a encouraging more creative play--and even with all the shmancy stuff out there, many companies just want kids to go outside and play with each other.  Too bad it's really not up to them.  

But, how much do shmancy toys really aid the imagination anyway?

It all started with this story about Popar toys, using Augmented Reality to create reading experiences for kids.  And I thought, "Wow, I would love to see this!".  So, I sprung for the admission to the Toy Fair in NYC.  No person under 18 was permitted, and I could see why.  A kid would have a coronary!  I almost did a couple of times.  

For the most part, this event is geared toward buyers, but I had some interesting experiences.  First of all, I got to see a demo of Popar!  And I got to speak with the creators about their vision.  Like all toy companies using new media (in this case, Augmented Reality) they have no idea whether or not there has been any gains in education as a result of the product (always a cart before the horse process with a chicken or egg backdrop...).  But they were one of the FEW products using new media with an educational bent.  

Don't get me wrong--I saw a ton of iPads and iPhones and robots.  But, for the most part the iPad was a "companion" to an old favorite (e.g, Scrabble and Monopoly) or being shoved in a rubber ball (?) or a plastic teddy bear like device so that one could hug it the phone?

Good things I saw/noticed:

1.) BOARD GAMES STILL DOMINATE.  Many innovators are still trying to get kids together, and playing communally (or better yet--with their parents!)  Check out these awesome ones:  Seven Ate Nine and Wise Alec.  

2.) Robots are still cool.  This company, Mechatars, is using new media (Internet) to get kids to go outside and play with their friends.  Basically, a child is encouraged to gain points online by going "outside" and playing battle bots with their friends first.  There's a lot of flaws with this idea (kids don't really play with kids in their neighborhoods as much as they used to; most kids need a parent to get them online; might be too much "go between").

3.) A lot of companies a encouraging more creative play--and even with all the shmancy stuff out there, many companies just want kids to go outside and play with each other.  Too bad it's really not up to them.  

But, how much do shmancy toys really aid the imagination anyway?

The minimal effect that technology has had on teaching and learning is a failure of the field of education not a failure of technology. Teachers who strive to take their classrooms of students to 2-sigma, but have no school-level supports know this well. Further, those teachers know that the technology available to them barely connects to the real work that they do every day and the extra work they must do to make 2-sigma happen. And they readily admit that in many instances the technology that they do have actually increases their load. Not surprisingly, data show teachers rarely using technology in their classroom instruction.

The shifts that we must seek in educational thought, theory, and action require education to demand technologies that extend, connect, and develop the capacities of teachers, students, and other educational stakeholders to benefit from the research of Bloom and others.

Ah, I should've trusted my paisani:

From the abstract:   "The authors conclude that the optimistic portrayal of younger generations’ digital competences is poorly founded. Furthermore, it is pointed out that understanding students’ digital competence levels through fast assessment tools is a fundamental opportunity for schools to analyse deficiencies and prepare adequate intervention strategies" (Calvani, et al., 2010).

There's 47438957075 things I like about this story, but here are my top TWO:

1.) THIS IS THE WAY WE NEED TO USE NEW MEDIA IN LEARNING ENVIRONMENT.  How can we imagine and repurpose older curricula for new media while SUCCESSFULLY benefitting from the abilities of the new medium?  In other words, Facebook offers the luxury of virtual intimacy or social presence.  This BRILLANT Librarian re-purposed Facebook to acquaint her audience with these people from the past.

2.) Death of Libraries?  HA.  Librarians are gatekeepers.  THERE IS NO DANA.  ONLY ZOOL.

OK, AND NOW THE ARTICLE:

This woman's railing of eBooks fails to notice the new interactions that are arising between children and their parents as a result.  Instead, she's still obsessed with how it's just not the same as a book.

You know, maybe I am tired, but this guy's gut reaction makes me steam.  I normally accept the medical-based debates that too much exposure is like too much of anything--out of balance.  I like the advice given to this man, but why is the go-to reaction (i.e., heuristic) that the game is a problem?

What about the bonding with the grandpa?  What about joining them to really play the game and see?

Why is the rest of the academic community turned on to gaming, and the medical community is still pumping out fear?

Why is our cheat code for games to assume they're so dangerous?

We don’t really know yet how joining Facebook at a tender age affects kids socially and emotionally. There’s the fun and freedom of Facebook, and then there’s the Consumer Reports finding that the site exposed a million teenagers to bullying and harassment last year. What is clear is that Facebook thinks it needs access to kids’ lives in order to continue to dominate its industry. The younger the child, the greater the opportunity to build brand loyalty that might transcend the next social-media trend. And crucially, signing up kids early can accustom them to “sharing” with the big audiences that are at their small fingertips.

Presenting at yet another conference (whew--two in 3 weeks!)

Seeing this guy with my homie who turned me on to it!

http://www.jesperjuul.net/ludologist/