Growing up I dreamed. We all dreamed. We all knew the phrases. "Bases loaded, two outs, bottom of the ninth, down by three, look who's coming to bat." We could smell the air, feel the tension, hear the sounds of the game. It was a game of individuals. In that moment we would see ourselves: the pitcher, the catcher, the bat, and the ball. The rest faded to black for we dreamed an individual's dream. It was our dream and it probably ends with us. My sons, like many other children, don't dream this dream. They don't watch baseball. They enjoy going to a game in the same way I enjoy going to the theater. Every once in a while it's a fun experience. It was my grandfather's game, my father's game, and my game. But it's not their game and not their friends game either.
As I watch movies, shows, and games on the television, in the background plays Stampylonghead. The sounds of video game walkthroughs play as I watch the heroes of my generation dance in front of me. The clash of time occurs and in the end the art of my generation will be replaced by the art of theirs. Who knew that the Fred Savage masterpiece, The Wizard, would foretell of the direction entertainment would go. However, as the Amazon purchase of the Twitch Gaming Network for one billion dollars demonstrates, perhaps the future in sports entertainment is not on ESPN but rather youth watching youth play video games.
In the past three years education has had two forces driving the need to upgrade our digital devices. The primary urgency has been the Common Core State Standards assessments including PARCC and SMARTERbalanced. The second force has been SAMR. SAMR, a methodology by Dr. Rueben Puentadura that analyzes the role of technology in learning. SAMR looks at the learning experience and identifies how the experience is a substitution, augmentation, modification, or redefinition of the prior learning experience. The interesting thing is that these two forces are at odds. The standards and assessment group drives us towards skills of the knowledge economy. How much information can you know? How can we trick you with confusing language on the test? How can we get you to write so that our robograders can read it and assess it accurately? The funny thing is, when was the last time any of us in the work world wrote the five paragraph essay? When was the last time any of us in the work world did the research paper with note cards and highlighters to write the five page paper. However, the PARCC and SMARTERbalanced assessments are driving educational purchasing decisions.
As I start this next dialogue, let me put my biases on the table. In our district we are both an Apple and Google shop. We actively use and promote Google Apps for Education and use Apple products to access them. As a district, we have earned recognitions from Apple and our leaders, myself and our Director of Innovative Technology and Learning, are both Google Certified Teachers. Simply put, we are not currently a Microsoft shop. That being said, if the Common Core State Standards assessments were driving my purchasing decisions, I would have no choice but to purchase Chromebooks. Simply put, PARCC doesn't currently allow us to use the iPad Mini or the Nexus 7 to participate in the assessment. Furthermore it doesn't allow us to use a tablet at all without the keyboard. This is really interesting as most often (as Stevenson and New Trier are finding out) students prefer the tablets but also choose not to use the keyboards. Their work world is not ours. In a world in which cost is the driver, schools have no choice but to choose the Chromebook.
The trick is that my children's world is not my world. They live in a world in which the Washington Post was saved by Amazon owner Jeff Bezos and the New York Times is up for sale. They are going into the world in which Youtube, Khan Academy, and Lynda.com share how to videos on how to do everything. Their writing is not 2,000 word essays but expository scripts that balance humor, visuals and media. They need the world of SAMR, one in which their products are redefined for another generation. Just this week, Educational Technology and Mobile Learning organized the Google Apps in the SAMR Framework. The interesting thing about this poster, is that in order to redefine the learning, the apps require us to work with others. The tools are often not best on the underpowered Chromebook but ask us to interact with a world through visuals. Mobile cameras like those found on the tablet. Video creation, touch interaction, music making are all part of redefinition. Tasks very poorly done on a Chromebook.
I live and teach Sunday School in a Chromebook district. We share 125 students between five fifth grade classes and we invite the children to Bring their Own Devices to Sunday School. We have watched for 12 weeks now and only three times has a Chromebook come to Sunday School. All by the same child. Every other time, the children self-select either no device, a tablet (most often iOS but there have been a couple of Fires and Nooks), or a phone (mostly iOS but some Android). They prefer, when given the choice to research, read, write, and create on mobile platforms. They send in writings via email and google docs. They make songs and videos. They create and redefine the learning each week. A majority are required to bring Chromebooks to school on a daily basis, yet when it is their own learning, their own choice, their opportunity to select, they choose mobile over portable for their future.
Questions remain about the cost-benefit of digital learning. In the ways we currently measure learning, the balance sheet may not tip in the right direction. The question remains whether these tools truly measure the outputs we need to create within our learners. Does the product of a standardized test truly predict the value a student will bring to our society? There is no question that cost is always a consideration, yet cost is relative. In 1984, a 19 inch Television and a VCR cost $868, nearly $2000 in the current economy after being adjusted for inflation. Yet one of those ended up in almost every American household. When making our purchasing decisions, we need to think of not simply of the test but what we want for our children's learning and their future.
My sons spent yesterday creating levels in Geometry Dash. In a world in which they commonly argue, they spent nine hours refining levels, creating new ones, and receiving comments from other Geometry Dash players in the world. They were creative, collaborative, and found an authentic audience. The oldest one wants permission to create a youtube channel so he can share his let's play game walkthrough videos. He wants to make multi-media expository products. I'm not ready for that yet, but he is. While we plan for assessments of an era and economy past, at least they are preparing for their future.
I live and teach Sunday School in a Chromebook district. We share 125 students between five fifth grade classes and we invite the children to Bring their Own Devices to Sunday School. We have watched for 12 weeks now and only three times has a Chromebook come to Sunday School. All by the same child. Every other time, the children self-select either no device, a tablet (most often iOS but there have been a couple of Fires and Nooks), or a phone (mostly iOS but some Android). They prefer, when given the choice to research, read, write, and create on mobile platforms. They send in writings via email and google docs. They make songs and videos. They create and redefine the learning each week. A majority are required to bring Chromebooks to school on a daily basis, yet when it is their own learning, their own choice, their opportunity to select, they choose mobile over portable for their future.
Questions remain about the cost-benefit of digital learning. In the ways we currently measure learning, the balance sheet may not tip in the right direction. The question remains whether these tools truly measure the outputs we need to create within our learners. Does the product of a standardized test truly predict the value a student will bring to our society? There is no question that cost is always a consideration, yet cost is relative. In 1984, a 19 inch Television and a VCR cost $868, nearly $2000 in the current economy after being adjusted for inflation. Yet one of those ended up in almost every American household. When making our purchasing decisions, we need to think of not simply of the test but what we want for our children's learning and their future.
My sons spent yesterday creating levels in Geometry Dash. In a world in which they commonly argue, they spent nine hours refining levels, creating new ones, and receiving comments from other Geometry Dash players in the world. They were creative, collaborative, and found an authentic audience. The oldest one wants permission to create a youtube channel so he can share his let's play game walkthrough videos. He wants to make multi-media expository products. I'm not ready for that yet, but he is. While we plan for assessments of an era and economy past, at least they are preparing for their future.
No comments:
Post a Comment