Game-Based Learning….Not only fun but a vehicle for “STEALTH” Assessment [Blog Post 4 – PM Class]

With my two-week residency coming to a conclusion, I have been reflecting on my practices within the classroom with deference to my formal and informal academic experiences during this time.

Stealth assessment, new in characterization but not conceptualization, is defined by Shute and Kim (2014) as a means of formative assessment which takes place through video games or immersive environments which is evidence-based with the intent of supporting learning.

I now realize that I have been completing stealth assessments, since 2008, using a variety of tools and applications from teacher constructed games such as Jeopardy, Bingo, and Who Wants to Be a Millionaire to what had been emerging polling software such as Socrative, Kahoot!, and EV Poll. Shut and Kim (2014) characterize the stealth assessment as being immersive in nature, and in my practice, it was not these educational games which provided the immersive experience but the very practice of gamification itself.  I have always attempted to include games within my classroom, be it games to review content or learning by constructing games (game-based learning). However, what has been a transformation for my practice was gratifying my classroom.  This involved turning the daily experience of learning into a game in which both my students and I participated.

Students created team names, banners, and even took team photos….

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Everything from homework assessment/completion to class participation, to the delivery of classroom attendance, was gamified.  Students, given the ability to form teams of 3-4 students, competed daily earning points for their respective teams.  Each of my classes became a “league” named and classified by the students composed of distinct learning teams each with their own unique team name, mascot, leadership structure, and chant. Student’s organized tournament days (learning tournaments to earn points toward our respective league season).

As I reflect on the experience, it was the immersive nature of gamification itself that allowed me to conduct assessments within the organic practice of gamification.

Student’s did not realize they where being assessed, instead of many of the practices became a way to “earn points” for one’s team. For example, the beginning of each class involved me “checking homework” utilizing an excel file (running average of homework completion) in which I consulted with students.  Student’s who completed homework earned a point for their team and for learning, not only did I have students who actively engaged themselves in completing homework (behaviorism!!!!) but I was able to informally review student answers and provided feedback in these consultations. Playing a Kahoot! Within my gamified classroom could happen at any time; a reason was not needed to play or create Kahoot’s since they were part of the very fabric of my gamified classroom.

The immersive nature of gamification allowed me to conduct multiple formative assessments in a variety of ways, allowing me to provide informal feedback and gather data to shape my classroom practice.  Gamification itself “stealthified” my assessment.

This often resulted in my own science and math sections having 10-25% higher class averages than other course sections.  End of year student-success meetings often resulted in me discussing and sharing best practices through a formalized presentation based professional development (PD).  I found this ineffective, often advocating for team-teaching and code 83 (planning time) days allowing teachers to visit my classroom and plan assessments for use in gamification.  Unfortunately, for a variety of reasons (change of leadership), this did not happen and I found myself pursuing a new career in a new province.

As I reflect on stealth assessment, especially within my own practice, I know that it works.  I have lived it and seen the powerful effects on both student achievement and learning.  Shute and Kim (2014) state “for formative assessment to be embraced more widely there should be more support – such as through professional development – for teachers (p.318).  However, I believe that such PD must itself be delivered in ways that allow teachers the time to truly reflect, understand, and apply formative assessments in ways which are meaningful to their own practice and to student learning.

References

Shute, V. J., Leighton, J. P., Jang , E. E., & Chu, M -W. (2016). Advances in the science of assessment. Educational Assessment, 21(1), 34-59. http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.lib.ucalgary.ca/10.1080/10627197.2015.1127752

Designing Learning like a Swiss Army Knife [Final Post: Blog Post 3 – AM]

Designing Learning like a Swiss Army Knife

At this point, as we bring our 2^nd residency to a close, I find myself with more questions than when I started my studies within the learning science. Although, I have many questions I do feel that between the academic reading in exploring theories of learning and assessment I have developed a resource for potential answers. Even more valuable has been the sharing with colleagues, with regard to developing a shared understanding of many theories we have studied to situating our learning by sharing our experiences in education.

An emerging fundamental belief has emerged for me in that it would seem there is no universal learning theory that is applicable to every learning context.  For myself, I have contextualized my use of learning theories to how one uses a swiss army knife.  I plan to use the theory that works, with the goal of improving learning for ALL those in my school and district community.

In class, Eva has on several occasions shared with enthusiasm that all our discussions of what really amounts to academic discourse are really about improving learning for our students.

I have been reflecting on how does this happen?  How do we bring change to an educational system that seemingly maintains its’ existing structures and practices?

Cleveland (2004) describes the nature of uncentralized systems, which are defined by freedom in which members take the initiative to learn, collaborate, and network. These systems have evolved from a belief in leading by learning – in essence, knowledge, and collaboration are the impetus for solving problems.

As educators, we find ourselves in learning environments with ever-increasing complexity.

It would seem that if we want to truly solve the problems in front of us, we need to take the initiative of finding the answers ourselves working, not alone in our classrooms, but together with our students and colleagues.  As we work together, we must endeavor to maintain our freedom of thought and objectivity to seek out the best answers for our learning environments.

 

References

Cleveland, H. (2004). Leading and learning with nobody in charge. In M. L. Conner, & J. G. Clawson (Eds.), Creating a learning culture: Strategy, technology, and practice (pp. 19-34). Cambridge, UK; Cambridge University Press.

The Validity of Online Peer Assessments [Blog Post 3 – PM Class]

The Validity of Online Peer Assessments

My own experience using applications such as flip-grid, in conjunction with our experiences of using this technology as a form of peer feedback really had me look at Bouzidi and Jaillet (2009) analysis of the validity of peer assessments in an online format.

Bouzidi and Jaillet (2009) indicate that online peer assessment has been utilized as a form of formative assessment of learning, but lack impactful meaning or consequence since “this assessment method does not have any direct consequences on decisions concerning access to the following year” (Perrenoud as cited in Bouzidi & Jaillet, 2009, p.257). The authors examine the validity of peer summative assessment, posing the question “can grading carried out by students be trusted?” (Bouzidi & Jaillet, 2009, p.257).

Existing research, by Sadler and Good (2006) suggests that comparing the marks awarded by students, through peer and self-assessment, are reliable and correlate well with the marks awarded while Cho et al. (2006) argues that “peer assessment, based on at least 4 assessors per paper, is extremely reliable and is as valid as the teacher’s assessment” (as cited in Bouzidi & Jaillet, 2009, p.258). Yet, Zevenbergen (2001) believes that peer assessment, while an efficient learning tool, can not be an alternative to the assessment completed by teachers.

In exploring the validity of online assessments, Bouzidi & Jaillet (2009) have found that peer assessment can be trusted when it is conducted by at least four peers (working together) and when applied to exams in domains requiring objective knowledge (science: calculations, short algorithms, and drafting of short texts).  The authors indicate that future research will explore the validity and reliability of peer assessment of items requiring scale schemes in future research.

At this point, this has left me with a lot of questions, especially with regard to how I have been using peer assessment. Over the past year, I have utilized self-assessment and peer feedback in my nutrition class utilizing a scale-based rubric and a reflective component allowing students to give themselves a grade on the food lab.  This grade is based on their self-assessment and the peer feedback provided.

This reflective grade does not result in a summative mark, but as a means of informing my own marking process since Ontario, Education guidelines indicate that peer and self-assessments can-not be used in any summative evaluations/assessments that are impactful of a grade.  So in these cases, I have used peer and self-evaluation as a method to inform and guide my own assessment and evaluation of work.

However, I am now left wondering, about the validity of using scales in assessments involving students and their peers.  I had envisioned utilizing scales in the context of a google form, in my working in learning task 3 with regard to developing an assessment tool for the “Mary Ward 2.0” project in which students redesign their school.

At this point, I am left with more questions and think I need to follow up on the work of Bouzidi and Jaillet.

References

Bouzidi, L., & Jaillet, A. (2009). Can Online Peer Assessment be Trusted? Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 12(4), 257-268. http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.lib.ucalgary.ca/docview/1287039101?pq-origsite=summon&accountid=9838

Multiple Intelligences & Metacognition [Blog Post 2 – AM Class]

Metacognition and multiple intelligences (MI) are terms intimately familiar to teachers; in my own practice, these are concepts that I have applied with the goal of shaping learning in my classroom. At first glance, my own beliefs (which I believe many educators share) are that these conceptualizations frame the learner as individuals who “learn better” when engaged in tasks employing strategies utilizing multiple intelligences and metacognitive strategies.  This would seem to imply education itself is shaped by teachers who create optimal conditions for learning by employing strategies grounded in metacognition and MI.

At first glance I found myself thinking of education existing in the context and metaphors connected to moment one (standardized education). Students exist as learners and teachers as designers of learning, who create the optimal conditions for learning to occur.  Teachers use metacognition and MI strategies to ensure that students are learning.  In essence, my experience has been that teachers use these strategies to optimize learning which metaphorically speaking feels like improving productivity within the classroom.  Students just learn more quickly when you use these strategies grounded in these mental processes.  However, as I reflect upon Engaging Minds and my learning and experiences over the past week my understanding and beliefs about metacognition and MI has been reframed.

In discussing multiple intelligence, Gardner (2008) reframes this concept not as a definition of intelligence but as multiple approaches to understanding which values the uniqueness of our students. As he states, “students do not arrive in schools as blank states, nor as individuals who can be aligned unidimensionally along a single axis of intellectual development” (p.106). Each of our students is unique with regard to biology, cultural background, experience, and personal history.  In essence, our students are not blank slates. So, MI becomes an entry point allowing teachers to engage students in ways that allow them to situate themselves within a task since it is personally relevant. “This places students directly in the center of a disciplinary topic, arousing their interest and securing cognitive commitment for further exploration” (p.109). When learning is personally relevant, students connect learning to their own interests and personal experience which allows for the construction of personal analogies to foster deeper understanding. Finally, MI allows for a method to convey and share one’s own learning and understanding. In conveying this, many “educators and scholars may continue to believe that there is an optimal mode for representing the core of a topic” (Gardner, 2008, p.112). Yet, Gardner (2008) argues that something is only well understood when an individual is capable of demonstrating this knowledge in several ways, though “multiple modes of representing drawing on a number of symbol systems, intelligence, schemas, and frames” (p.111).

Metacognition is often described as a learner’s own awareness of their individual knowledge and learning processes.  In the context of learning, Winne and Azevedo (2014) describe metacognition as a process taking place before learning, during learning, and after learning.  It is a process that allows learners to assess their own knowledge and skills with regard to the ability to complete tasks before a “cognitive event”.  It continues through learning, as individuals monitor their own progress and adapt strategies with the goal of improving their progress and allowing them to continue their learning.  Finally, after learning metacognition can be contextualized as a reflective process through which an individual assesses what works and engages in what Salamon and Perkins characterize as “forward-reading transfer by making decisions about how to approach similar tasks in the future” (as cited in Winne & Azevedo, 2014, p.63).  Metacognition has been conceptualized by researchers using the terms of knowledge and forms of thinking.  Knowledge, in metacognition, can be (1) declarative: existing beliefs with regard to self-efficacy and epistemological beliefs); (2) procedural: knowledge of skills needed to complete a task, essentially the “know-how”; and (3) conditional: a knowledge of how and when skills should be applied.  With regard to thinking, metacognition has been described as an awareness of metacognitive knowledge (called metacognitive monitoring) and how this knowledge results in changes to thinking and actions (called metacognitive control).

At first glance, the discussions of knowledge and forms of thinking are described as taking place within the individual.  Metacognitive knowledge itself is often described with respect to appropriateness to external norms and practices.  Yet, metacognition is not a singular event.  It is an ongoing, an iterative process of adjusting one’s own thinking and planning skills in order to complete a task in a process known as self-regulated learning (SRL) (Winne & Azevedo, 2014). When metacognition is ongoing, students are able to regulate their own learning allowing them to situate themselves in any context of learning.

At this point, I find myself contextualizing MI and SRL as innate characteristics found within our students. When we design learning environments that allow for these characteristics to emerge, they empower our students by fostering agency and allowing students to connect their learning to their own personal history, ability, and interests.  MI allows our learners to situate themselves within any learning environment, while SRL fosters the agency needed to engage and act within these environments.

References

Gardner, H. (2008). Multiple approaches to understanding. In Illeris, K. Contemporary theories of learning : Learning theorists … in their own words (pp.106-115). Retrieved from https://ebookcentral-proquest-com.ezproxy.lib.ucalgary.ca

Winne, P.H., & Azevedo, R. (2014). Metacognition. In Sawyer, R. K. (Ed.). Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences. (pp.63-87). New York: Cambridge University Press. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com.ezproxy.lib.ucalgary.ca/lib/ucalgary-ebooks/detail.action?docID=261112

Developing Design Based Assessment [Class – PM – Blog 2]

SO HOW DO WE START THE PROCESS OF DEVELOPING DESIGN-BASED ASSESSMENT? 

To truly development assessments for design-based learning (DBL), we must truly understand what learning in this pedagogical framework means.  In DBL, Gomez Puente, van Eijck, and Jochems (2013) indicate that knowledge is built through a process of inquiry to solve problems and complete open-ended tasks.  In this learning framework, teachers act as facilitators who provide formative feedback which help’s establish a learning culture grounded in action-through-reflection in which the work is not just about the final solution/result, but is also about the process itself. Knowing this, we as designers must pay special attention to the very nature and goal of assessment.

Early in my career, I facilitated a number of professional development (PD) of school staff on Ontario’s Success for All document.  This document introduced the new terms of assessment for learning, assessment as learning, and assessment of learning.  In reflection, I now realize that in my own training and delivery of staff PD our discussions of assessment (for, as of) was contextualized using the synonyms of assessment already familiar to teachers, specifically formative, interim, and summative assessment.

As I reflect on the meaning of formative feedback in the context of DBL, I realize how improper this may have been.  I am left wondering, by using synonyms of assessment (formative, summative) did I essentially “miss the boat” in imparting the true formative nature of the formative nature of “assessment as learning”.  At this time, many of my colleagues and I fostered classrooms grounded in open-ended tasks, problem-solving and project-based learning.  Yet our idea of formative assessment was not one grounded in feedback to promote thinking and reflection, but of assessing the progress of an individual student or group.  In essence, a point which is simply a “knowledge” or “learning” check which is simply a point on the journey to the final evaluation.

If we truly we want to foster classrooms grounded in design thinking, ones in which students solve problems collaboratively through a process of iteration involving research, inquiry, and reflection we must reframe the meaning and goal of assessment itself.

Many of the tools for authentic assessments are already familiar to teachers.  Koh (2017) indicates that “both process and product matter to authentic assessments, and hence formative assessment – such as open questioning, descriptive feedback, self-and peer assessments – can be easily incorporated into authentic assessments” (p.3).  With the tools already in place, we must develop a mindset that reminds us that developing design-based assessments require us to be mindful of the process.  Afterall, formative feedback is the instrument which fosters deep learning and promotes the skills required in design thinking (Gomez Puente, van Eijck, & Jochems, 2013).

As we create assessment tools that move beyond the narrow scope of the final product, to provide students with the formative feedback needed in the process of knowledge construction we must be sure to include our own students in the process.  As we seek to bring change to the educational system, we must be sure that those engaged in this reform are well versed in design assessment and “able to ask the right questions at the right time, anticipate conceptual pitfalls, and have at the ready a repertoire of tasks that will help students take the next steps requires deep knowledge of subject matter” (Shepard, 2000, p.103).

The very nature of assessment is changing, and before such assessments can truly help reform education for our learner’s teachers themselves require the time to reflect about the evolving role of assessment within the context of their own beliefs and of those in their school communities (Shepard, 2000).  The first and most important step in developing design assessments does not involve the construction of any tool, but instead in shifting mindset to a new understanding about the role of assessment as a tool of formative feedback.

References

Gomez Puente, S., van Eijck, Jochems, W. (2013). A sampled literature review of design-based learning approaches: a search for key characteristics. International Journal of Technology and Design Education 23(3), 717–732
DOI 10.1007/s10798-012-9212-x

Koh, K. (2017). Authentic assessment. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Education. DOI:10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.013.22

Shepard, L. (2000). The role of assessment in a learning culture. Educational Researcher, 29(7), 4-14. Retrieved from:
https://journals-sagepub-com.ezproxy.lib.ucalgary.ca/doi/abs/10.1177/0022057409189001-207

Engaging Minds…..Moments I, II, III [Class – AM – Blog 1]

Davis, Sumara, Luce-Kapler (2015) ask “What’s teaching? Or, more precisely, how might we describe teaching that fits with the time and place we find ourselves? (p.1). As I have been reading Engaging Minds, I have attempted to frame my thoughts, reflections, and evolving understanding within this question especially as each moment presents a unique educational pedagogy. Having had the opportunity to teach in a variety of contexts, I have been thinking about how these moments have related to my own practice and experience. I have now realized that my experiences in self-directed education have illustrated a learning community which brings moment one (standardized education); moment two (authentic education); and moment three (democratic education) to life.

As I reflect, I feel blessed having been able to teach within the self-directed model.  I have had the opportunity to teach in two self-directed programs, over 3500km apart.  In both communities, my colleagues often commented on how special and unique these communities are.  I generally have attempted to maintain a philosophy that schools are schools, and kids are kids.  Yet, as I have read and reflected on my experiences in these schools in respect to Engaging Minds, I now realize I have had the opportunity to experience dynamic communities that bring many of the discussed moments to life.

With both Mary Ward and St. Joseph being schools founded on the principles of self-directed learning, they promote the individualizing of learning by allowing students a great deal of choice. There are no formal schedules or school bells.  Students are able to choose what they learn; negotiate how they learn it, and choose where they want to learn it. Even course selections offer variability, in which students can complete, drop, or switch courses through any point of the school year. Courses are generally grounded in project-based learning and situated in real-world experiences. This allows students to establish their own path, authentic to their own needs and grounded in real-world practices.  One of my former basketball players spoke fondly of St. Joseph’s, indicating that the school’s format allowed her to complete her academic requirements for chemical engineering early giving her the time to take additional elective (choice) credits in welding and autobody allowing her to not only work in these fields as a high-school student but jump-start her red-seal apprenticeship in welding.

Davis, Sumara, and Luce-Kapler (2015) characterize democratic citizenship education as an approach to schooling which is attentive to cultural inequalities. While at St. Joe’s, the school community was very active in Me to We movement promotes student leadership in enacting social change.  Students in the school regularly attended Me to We events and took an active role in their communities, truly looking to help those around them

Admittedly, I did not give the charity a great deal of thought. I thought it was nice to see students taking leadership roles and trying to change the world. Yet, now four years later as a teacher I find the same charity is not only active at Mary Ward but was started at the school.  Brothers and former Mary Ward students, Craig and Mark Keilburger, started this movement (originally Free the Children) and for quite some time Mary Ward itself served as the home base for the We Charity.

Over the past year, I have found that students as leaders in change is clearly part of the very fabric of Mary Ward.  Many of own students have replaced academic units in own courses, with “Ward Units” in which they have established their own learning goals.  What is amazing, is that many of these Ward Units involved taking a leadership role and bringing change to our Toronto community.  I have had students complete such units in which they have:

• Constructed and ran a sandwich program: making and delivering sandwiches on the first Friday of every month to those who are homeless;
• Served as the kitchen crew at St. Francis Table, which is a restaurant run by the Capuchin Friars which serves meals to the poor;
• Constructed and ran an activity program for senior citizens; and,
• Ran a gaming and socialization program for hospitalized children.

Finally, this brings me to moment one – standardized education which is alive and well at both Mary Ward and St. Joseph.  Both schools are part of the Canadian Coalition of Self-Directed Learning and follow the nine principles of self-directed learning (see https://professionallyspeaking.oct.ca/december_2010/features/self-directed.aspx).  One of these principles, mastery learning requires learning to take place in segments which must be mastered (60% grade) before moving on.  Mastery learning is founded on the basis of programmed learning, a behaviorist theory of learning founded on the principles of operant conditioning.

So, as I think about my own most recent experiences in education and the moments discussed in Engaging Minds I am starting to think that these pedagogical views (standardization, authenticity, democracy) can all live in one moment.  Maybe as educators, we need not discount or subscribe to any single moment but instead, take what is best from each. Gatti and Catalano (2015) have discussed how including new teachers in conversations about different learning frameworks can equip them with the ability to deliberately choose and defend a frame for learning and teaching.  I believe this applies to all educators, we must truly be aware of the positive and negative aspects of each moment and deliberately take what is best of each.  We need to do what is best for our students.

References

Davis, B., Sumara, D., & Luce-Kapler, R. (2015). Engaging Minds: Cultures of Education and Practices of Teaching (3^rd edn.). New York: Routledge. Retrieved from https://ebookcentral-proquest-com.ezproxy.lib.ucalgary.ca/lib/ucalgary-ebooks/detail.action?docID=2038974

Gatti, L., & Catalano, T. (2015). The business of learning to teach: A critical metaphor analysis of one teacher’s journey. Teacher and Teacher Education, 45, 149-160. Retrieved from
https://www-sciencedirect .com.ezproxy.lib.ucalgary.ca/science/article/pii/S0742051X14001292

Design Based Assessment Opportunities and Challenges [Class – PM]

Now as I move into my 2^nd year in the Learning Sciences program at the University of Calgary, I have been reflecting on how do we apply what we have learned? Puente, Van Eijck, and Jochems (2013) describe design-based learning (DBL) as “an educational approach grounded in the process of inquiry and reasoning towards generating innovative artifacts, systems, and solutions”.  Over the past school year, my first at Mary Ward center for self-directed learning, I engaged myself in a process of inquiry, design, and iteration in rewriting the curriculum for a number of courses. In some way, I guess it was innate curiosity in exploring how I could apply what I myself was learning.

My goal was to create programs of study for my students which established learning in a social context, in essence, the creation of learning communities which could work together to solve problems, conduct an inquiry, build knowledge and expertise through project-based learning (PBL). As I reflect, it seems I was attempting to foster learning by design (LBD) a process through which learners construct knowledge through a process of iteration leading to increased levels of complexity in which design itself is the medium (Kolondner as cited in Puente, Van Eijck, and Jochems, 2013).

In one of these courses, Grade 12 Health and Nutrition (HFA 4U) I worked closely with a colleague in developing a course that contained a sequence of activities and assessments (field trips, food labs, guest speakers, service activities) which scaffolded a growing level of nutrition knowledge and expertise among our learners. These activities themselves have many of the characteristics of DBL, being open-ended, experiential, authentic, and multi-disciplinary in nature (Puente, Van Eijck, and Jochems, 2013) and scaffold toward the PBL-theme culminating activities (PBL themed).

In the Mary Ward Food-Truck Fair students created their own food-trucks within a sustainable business model and together hosted a food-truck fair, attended by the school community.

In the Cook with Ward Project, students created their own cooking shows to teach others about cooking and nutrition.

As designers of learning, we must keep an open-mind when fostering learning opportunities within our communities. Only with an open-mind can we truly connect with our colleagues and find the opportunities to foster the development of design learning.  In my experience, many of the nutrition activities created actually already existed in one-form or another. Maintaining an open-mind allowed these existing activities to iterate into new forms, in light with the principles of DBL.  This process was fostered by the collaborative discussion that took place between myself and my colleagues, allowing for the development of a shared philosophy and a common goal of supporting project-based learning.

However, I believe the challenge in designing DBL, including assessments, comes in fostering a true understanding of learning through design really means. For sustainability to occur, our colleagues must also understand the benefits of learning and assessing in design. As I reflect and have started to think about the upcoming school year, I myself now wonder how these two projects will evolve.  My thoughts have now shifted to how the assessments which take place throughout the year can better scaffold the development of the skills and knowledge required of the final project.

And maybe more importantly…..as these assessments and learning opportunities evolve, how does one get “buy-in” from colleagues to ensure the sustainability of the program?

What will these projects look as new faculty take responsibility for this course?

 

References

Gomez Puente, S., van Eijck, Jochems, W. (2013). A sampled literature review of design-based learning approaches: a search for key characteristics. International Journal of Technology and Design Education 23(3), 717–732 DOI 10.1007/s10798-012-9212-x

Shifting Classrooms…Is it Really About Technology?

A Shift in Knowledge

Thomas and Brown (2011) have discussed how the very value placed upon knowledge has changed.  We have gone from a society valuing explicit knowledge to one in which tacit knowledge is gaining value and importance.  As the authors state “the twenty-first century, however, belongs to the tacit. In the digital world, we learn by doing, watching, and experiencing” (p.798/1498).

Technology is at the heart of this shift toward a greater value of tacit knowledge.  Afterall explicit knowledge can now easily be accessed by all easily, through the world wide web.  More relevantly, the internet has enabled individuals to interact with knowledge through technology.  Knowledge is no longer an abstract concept, to be transmitted or as Thomas and Brown (2011) state “you teach and I learn” (p.798/1498).

The Knowledge Gained Through Experience

Tacit knowledge is gained through more than the cognitive experience of learning; it involves personal experience and experimentation in which learners engage with knowledge using their mind, body, and all their senses (Thomas & Brown, 2011).  The implications for knowledge are profound, no longer can we engage in the industrialization of education in which knowledge is passively transmitted to our students.

Figure 1: Image taken from Sousanis (2015) p.6.

My own experience was of an industrialized education system valuing conformity and the transmission of unquestioned explicit knowledge.  In such an education system in which the inhabitants conform, “lacking a critical dimension of potentialities to transencd their existing state” since “everything has its place” (Sousanis, 2015, p.6).

If we are truly to embrace new knowledge, one that involves the experience of the whole self we must embrace the shift toward tacit knowledge.  The knowledge gained by doing.

 

 

The Shift

The question remains how do we shift this experience of knowledge building from one of passive transmission to one involving the experience gained through agency?  The answers I believe are around us, yet we as educators must advocate for this shift. Thomas and Brown (2011) share an important aspect to this new culture of learning, that is “students learn best when they are able to follow their passion and operate within the constraints of a bounded environment” (p.798/1498).  We must provide this bounded environment since of course students are in our charge.  Yet how do we provide them with an environment which is constrained yet allows for passions to emerge and driving the very experience of learning?

Thomas and Brown (2011) have characterized learning within the characterizations of geeking out, messing around, and hanging out.  All these characterizations imply a lack of formal structures, instead environments which are social constructed allowing for the agency driven by personal interests and talents.  Learning needs to be an experience.

I truly believe that we do not require wholesale educational revolution; instead, we need to shift our mindsets and expectations.  The “killer app” here is not a new piece of software or technology, but a shift in how we socially construct learning environments with our students.  Technology is the instigator, however, it is not the solution to establishing 21st-century learning.

21st-century learning is a mindset toward knowledge; one that moves beyond knowing into the realm of creating and experiencing.  Knowledge in this context is visceral. I believe we engage such classrooms by avoiding the trap of falling into the newest emergent technology.  Instead, we must value the undercurrents and motivations that draw students to this new culture of learning.

As teachers we must step back, giving control to our students as co-creators and leaders of their own leaders.

Much like the philosophy fostered by Regilio Emilia, we must be aware that our that the classroom environments we establish become the third teacher.

References

Sousanis, N. (2015). Unflattening. Cambridge, Mass, US: Harvard University Press. Retrieved from https://ebookcentral-proquest-com.ezproxy.lib.ucalgary.ca/lib/ucalgary-
ebooks/detail.action?docID=4404111

Thomas, D., & Brown, J. S. (2011). A new culture of learning: Cultivating the imagination for a world of constant change. Seattle, WA: Create Space.

 

 

 

 

Resistance is Futile, Join the Collective

What is a Collective?

I am sure that any Star Trek fan can easily tell you what a collective is.  It’s the Borg who actively assimilate you (through force) into their own collective with the goal of achieving perfection.

Figure 1: the borg are all about force collectives, but our students choose to join their own collectives.

Fortunately in the real world, Thomas and Brown (2011) describe collectives as groups of “people who generally share values and beliefs about the world and their place in it, who value participation over belonging, and who engage in a set of shared practices” (p.678/2399).  Those participating in collectives are invested, actively displaying the agency to choose to participate.  The collective is a living embodiment of a community with a shared interest, one that blurs the lines between the private and public.

Our students actively engage in these collectives in their lives outside of school, with technology allowing for a multitude of avenues to explore and share interests.  For example, video gamers can participate in an online collective when actually playing multi-player games such as in X-BOX LIVE.  Yet, they can participate in other collectives in the very same shared interest through social media, Twitch, You-tube, and blogs.

Technology has allowed our students the agency to explore their interests and they choose to participate in their own collectives.  Like no other period of time, students now have the ability to easily explore their interests and find like-minded individuals because of the technology at their fingerprints.

Where does this leave us as Educators?

Thomas and Brown (2011) have characterized schools as being “predicated on the sense of the public and the private” (p.691/2399).  Teachers are the public focus of the classroom, a central figure who transmits information to students who learn in isolation.  At a glance, the classroom is a community; one in which every individual belongs.  However, it is not a collective since learning occurs in privacy and is generally isolated and only emerges into the public sphere when required to do so.
So how do we foster a school community that truly functions as a collective? How do we foster learning spaces that move students beyond belonging toward active participation?

When discussing media creation, Buckingham, Fraser, and Sefton-Green argue that the most successful school-based media programs allow students to not only create media in genres they are familiar with but to interact with an audience composed of knowledgeable peers (as cited in Ito et al., 2009).

As designers of learning, we must acknowledge the importance of personal choice and agency in learning. Our learners need to know they have the ability to choose how they participate in their learning. In my own experience, this can be established by allowing students a great deal of choice and latitude in how they complete an assignment or designed task.

For example, recently having taught an ethics class focusing on Catholic morality a core curriculum requirement was having student’s express ethical/moral constructs to their peers. Traditionally my colleague had always engaged students with this task through an ISP project which manifested itself as power-point presentations and handouts, generated by the student groups.  Upon a great deal of thought and reflection, we presented this task / ISP project in a very open format allowing students to not only select their moral/ethical framework but to illustrate their learning in any format they chose.  We were surprised to find that no two projects where alike.

• One group of students created a children’s storybook and read this to both of our classes (see figure 2);
  

  Figure 2: Casper & Jasper exploring the tenets of social justice.

• Another group wrote and performed a live skit that requires class participation;
• Meanwhile, another group of students planned a field trip for our classes to attend, in which their peers would serve lunch for the working poor at St. Francis Table.

Agency is an important aspect of fostering a collective in our schools.  Afterall, when our learners have freedom of choice, it invites them to participate.

What I still find challenging is how to we foster an audience for our students, how do we connect them with like-minded individuals?  The school and classroom community is relatively small, especially in comparison to the potential size of online communities.

I believe the challenge for schools in the future is how do we engage our students by designing learning that not only allows for a choice of interest but also allows for a connecting with broader communities.  In essence, how do we foster the creation of collectives beyond the classroom?  Emerging technologies such as Skype in the Classroom have created an avenue for this.  For example, while teaching in the WIN program our students were given the agency in selecting social science topics of instruction since our program did not have a formal program of study. As part of a their selected unit of study, students explored first nations culture and utilized Skype in the Classroom to connect with a first nation school from Toronto Ontario.  In essence, our WIN students established a collective through this online medium.

It was a powerful experience, one that I tried to establish while teaching my ethics class. Yet it seems that such technologies and pedagogical practices are in their infancy since both ethics classes (teachers and students) struggled to find classes to connect with.  I believe we as educators must focus our efforts in establishing collectives which allow our students to connect.

After all, unlike the Borg, our students are looking to join a collective.

 

 

 

 

 

 

References

Ito, M., Baumer, S., Bittanti, M., Cody, R., Stephenson, B. H., Horst, H. A., … & Perkel, D.

(2009). Hanging out, messing around, and geeking out: Kids living and learning with newmedia. MIT press.

 

Thomas, D., & Brown, J. S. (2011). A new culture of learning: Cultivating the imagination for a

world of constant change. Seattle, WA: Create Space.

 

Games….Shaping Who We Are? Or Are We shaping Games?

Thomas and Brown (2012) quote “no man ever steps in the same river twice, for it’s not the same river and he’s not the same man” (p.39) really prompted a reflection for me on how technology and social interaction have evolved.  As an avid gamer, I have played with many of the systems in figure 1.  This has left me wondering how each of these experiences with these pieces of technology has shaped me and my ongoing interactions in this sphere.

Figure 1: This timeline illustrates the evolution of mobile and console gaming.  The potential for so many wonderful experiences. (Video Game Timeline, n.d.)

Gaming: First Interactions with Technology 

Thomas and Brown (2012) state that “gaming represents the central form of early computer experience for kids.  More than two-thirds of the kids we interviewed had a game console at home before the age of ten” (p.196).  I realize this is true in my own experience. For myself, I distinctly remember having an Apple Macintosh computer in my grade 3 classroom.  Yet, no matter how much Ms. Defend attempted to get me to use the computer I had no interest in this technology.  My mind drifted to games of kickball and British bulldog that would take place during recess.  Yet, something interesting happened that Christmas.

Figure 2: Today’s Nintendo Classic emulates the fun brought forth by the original Nintendo NES system. (Nintendo Classic, n.d.).

I received the original 8-bit Nintendo NES system as a Christmas gift; I was 8 years old and hooked.

These early interactions with the NES system could be best characterized as recreational gaming, as described by Ito et al (2009).  For those involved in recreational gaming, there is a focus on competitive gameplay.  It is solitary and social, involving family and friends but at its’ heart it is “people gaming to game and getting together specifically to play games that require persistent engagement to master” (p.210).   In my own experiences, gaming in my family consisted of my father and I playing Duck Hunt with an emphasis on tracking scores as bragging rights.  I took great pride in being able to beat my father; on most weekend visits, we spent Friday evening playing this game together.

My gameplay with friends was dominated by a desire to master games, share cheat codes, and to learn from and compete with one another.  Even without networked gaming, there was a social aspect to gaming; it occurred by groups of friends meeting together in a player’s home or at the local recreation center.

Gaming, Evolution, Social Interactions & Gender

Thomas and Brown (2012) illustrate this increased pace of technological evolution by contrasting the adoption of computer technology and color television.  This is also true in gaming.  Gaming today is very different, especially in comparison to those early Sega, Nintendo, and Atari systems.  Yet something has not changed.  Gaming is still a very social experience. No longer do groups of gamers play together at each other’s households, they instead play together over online networks. In many games, solitary progress is tracked and shared socially through leader-boards.  I am left wondering is it the social experience that is driving the evolution of gaming, the designs of gaming that leads to the evolving social experience?

This leads me to wonder, how does this social experience contribute to the gender gap in gaming, with “recreational gaming and more mobilized forms of gaming tend to be more exclusionary and strongly associated with male geek identity” (Ito et al., 2009, p.228).  Reflecting on my experience over the past 30 years, gaming was and has been male-dominated. The woman (wives, mothers, sisters, girlfriends, etc.) have often participated in these games as spectators or as players who lacked the expertise to participate in “real gameplay”.  Ito et al. (2009) characterize this gender gap as being very real, especially in forms of gaming which are equated with technology-related learning.  I have observed this first-hand among my students, with boys generally being interested in modding, machinima, and screen-casting gameplay involving games such as Fortnite, Call of Duty, and Grand Theft Auto.

During my only year teaching religion, I had students develop skits centered upon morality teaching grounded in the Beatitudes.  I advocated for the use of technology in creating and presenting these skits, yet what I found was a divide across gender.  It was a group of boys who used Minecraft to create and present their skits.  All of these boys would be characterized as recreational gamers, based of course upon our discussions of gaming.

So I am left to ponder Ito et al.’s (2009) prediction that “we can expect more intergenerational sharing around gaming.  At the same time, the rapid rate of technology change with regard to gaming is likely to continue to produce a generation gap in gaming experience, even for parents who are avid gamers” (p.234).

So now I wonder how do we changed this “male-themed” world that seems to dominate recreational gaming?

Maybe I am simply asking…..

What can we do as educators to engage with students to make gaming more inclusive?

References

Ito, M., Baumer, S., Bittanti, M., Cody, R., Stephenson, B. H., Horst, H. A., … & Perkel, D.
(2009). Hanging out, messing around, and geeking out: Kids living and learning with
newmedia. MIT press.

Nintendo Classic. (n.d.). Retrieved February 17, 2019, from https://www.nintendo.com/nes-classic/

Speedgaming. (2007, April 12). Retrieved February 17, 2019, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-daxzVxrQI

Thomas, D., & Brown, J. S. (2011). A new culture of learning: Cultivating the imagination    for a world of constant change. Seattle, WA: Create Space. Video Game Timeline. (n.d.).        Retrieved February 17, 2019, from                                                                                                      http://thevideogamesystems.blogspot.com/2011/05/from-first-to-latest-video-game-              systems.html