Does it work? Early student observations show the game is very engaging. We’ll have to wait for the final study to be released to show it’s educational effectiveness…2009 at the earliest, but more like 2010. When the results do come out, expect a study on a scale unheard of in educational research: 2400 students across over two dozen school districts!

Can I try? Not yet. The study is still in progress. Once completed, and assuming the results show positive educational efficacy,  the game will need to move to commercial prototyping. This could be another year or two. University technology transfer can be a complicated process… the technology either needs to be bought by an existing company (hey EA, are you listening!?), or the university will spin off a company that will need to find venture capital.

Considering the $14 billion market in educational technology, this could be the start of some awesome new educational tools that could make classrooms into LAN parties! Oh yea, they’ll be making better grades and gaining those 21st century skills as well.

This is the bane of many traditional webquests. Wherein lies the power of the internet when resources are handed to you on a platter? It just doesn’t work that way. Lists of links made by someone else are inherently subjective. I would suggest a guided search: create search phrases that insure the sought after resource is returned in the first 5 items in Google. The assignment is to read the one item, but engagement lies in the opportunity to also look at the other 4 hits which may provide added value.

Let’s take it a step forward… into the realm of social networking. I would have del.icio.us installed as a browser add-in. Have them tag it in del.icio.us. Show one example of how the article could have been located using a del.icio.us tag search.

The technological expertise of the participants is very wide ranging. These two suggestions add very little complexity, but allow far more opportunity for greater exploration.

There are certainly additional ways to introduce the participants to social networking, and I understand the need to keep on track with content. Yet, the authentic world of technology is increasingly built upon social networking tools. We should stretch the participants in the right direction.

Targeting Oklahoma public school principals and superintendents, the seminar introduces the K20 Center’s IDEALS framework for whole school renewal using technology integration as a catalyst for change. For principals and superintendents, the two day seminar costs only $299 and the participants receive a laptop computer valued at $1500.

The seminar focuses on creation of professional learning communities (PLCs). PLC development is addressed through understanding the change process, sharing of successful models, and creation of action plans towards moving their own school or district towards a PLC. Action research, data driven decision making, and leadership skills are covered.

The K20 Center’s twist on this already successful idea is how technology integration can create a powerful catalyst for changing a school into a PLC. Classroom technologies (interactive whiteboards, student response systems, Powerpoints, classroom sound systems, etc.) are used through out the seminar to exemplify uses in teaching and learning. Participants create Powerpoint presentations, are given opportunities to word with Microsoft Word and Excel. They are provided a supportive environment to use their new laptops, find internet resources, and play with classroom technologies. Sessions are provided that demonstrate different technologies used in schools.

The sharing, networking, and modeling are powerful elements of the seminar. Each seminar (limited to approximately 40 participants) are divided into two cohorts that will continue networking beyond the two days. The seminar moves the leaders towards innovation adopters through use of technologies and sharing stories from their own districts.

School renewal efforts often overlook the necessity to provide professional development for school administrators. Change theory acknowledges the necessity for powerful leadership to lead change. Educational change that involves technology (as much does today) requires leadership that fulfills the role of technology adopters. The power of the program lies in creating a venue of leadership development to introduce the use of technology.

For more information, see the K20 Center website.

2. Compatibility. Back to the realization that some great technologies out there are incompatible with current modalities of teaching and learning. I would love to see more Web2.0 tools in the classrooms, but these tools require (gasp!) collaboration and creativity, neither of which are part of the didactic, lecture based models.

An idea that is incompatible with the values and norms of a social system will not be adopted as rapidly as an innovation that is compatible. The adoption of an incompatible innovation often requires the prior adoption of a new value system. (p.15)

Again, as much as we can, the K20 Center uses bridge technologies. Innovations that can be used in the current paradigm of teaching and learning, but give the freedom to push the envelope. The point is to introduce innovations that enhance however the students are being taught. And with the right professional development and the right leadership, teachers will begin to see how the technologies can really engage students in 21st century skills.

First, I really like his definition of innovation:

An innovation is an idea, practice, or object that is perceived as new by an individual or other unit of adoption.

There are some compelling aspects of education and technology with regards to this definition. Common education has been a slow adopter of innovation and I want to know why and how this can be fixed. This issue is at the core of what the K20 Center does. The concept of innovation as an idea and practice is very important for education and I’m beginning to sense that many, if not most, believe innovation to be related strictly to tools (technology). We know from research (at the K20 Center and elsewhere) that technology adoption in education is most successful when fused to a change in school culture. That change in culture is, in itself, an innovation.

A second important aspect of this definition surrounds the concept of “perceived”. Using a laptop is not an innovation to me. I’ve been doing it for years. The ways I use a laptop may be innovative. But for many educational leaders, putting their hand on a keyboard is innovative. Using a trackpad to move the mouse cursor is innovative.

If an idea seems to be new to the individual, it is an innovation.

Leaders can have a difficult time with innovation adoption. I’m sure their is more psychology worth investigating, but I suspect if an individual’s knowledge base has gotten them the top of the ladder, it can be a challenge to admit their is more worth learning. Unless, of course, one is threatened with extinction. Social service leaders may have the most difficulty with adoption of innovations.

Rogers writes (p.12) an important question innovation researchers address is

…how the perceived attributes of an innovation, such as it’s relative advantage, compatibility, and so on, affect its rate of adoption…

Drilling down into these attributes, the beauty of the K20 Center’s work using the IDEALS model for school change begin to emerge. I’ll tackle one attribute per post:

1. Relative Advantage. Kids are learning so why change? Assessment strategies are key here. If education assessment creates the wrong perception of effective learning, we might as well go home. NCLB isn’t helping in this regard. Assessment of learning is a complicated beast and stupefying it to the level of NCLB will do more harm than good. But what alternatives do we have? Plenty. But proper assessment takes time and wasting it on pouring data into the heads of children does not help.

But let’s assume we begin assessing kids on their problem solving abilities. Not multiplying 3 times 3, but how do you evenly arrange 9 desks in a room? It’s the process we are interested in, not the solution. And it is the process that should be assessed. In the real world, there are multiple solutions to complex problems. In school, we teach our kids there is one right answer and infinite wrong answers. This is not real world preparation. Does this mean we shouldn’t teach the basics? Yes. They’ll learn the basics when they discover the wrong math creates inconsistent results and integral errors when complex problem solving. And please, don’t underestimate kids’ ability to do complex problem solving and project-based lessons. Learning 2.0.

How does the K20 Center contribute to addressing the relative advantage attribute? We take into account the current culture of education. But show that it’s real power comes after cultural change. Some of the best tools for educational change are poorly fitted for the current paradigm of teaching and learning. It’s unfortunate because there are some really awesome tools available to schools that engage kids in complex problem solving and project-based learning.

Nonetheless, there are what I would term, bridge technologies. Technologies that can be effective in both paradigms. And the best technologies are ones that bridge and direct learning towards the new paradigm. These are also technologies that can easily be re-purposed. Here’s one: the laptop computer. Like many innovations, you’ve got to be careful with it. It can send you backwards as well as forward, depending on how you use it. Why? I’ll have to get to that on another post.

Wesley Fryer was kind enough to podcast the talk and post it to his blog. I’ve posted the Powerpoint at Slideshare here. Here are some of the concepts I’ve been working through:

1. I believe technology can greatly assist learning by scaffolding learning at different levels. Kids, as much as NCLB would like to have you believe, do not all learn at the same level. I brought this up by going back to the Herrnstein and Murray’s The Bell Curve. It’s not that I like what the book concludes, but I do see statistical facts for what they are. And to force a common testing paradigm on kids across all intelligence levels is simply criminal. As mentioned in a previous post, kids with high intelligence need the opportunities to excel, and kids with low intelligence need proper scaffolding and support the the smarter kids can offer. In the adult world, we work together as a community, finding a place for everyone at all levels (at least we should). We collaborate in order to bring out the strengths in everyone. And we don’t compare each through test taking (except the few weirdos who get into Mensa . I never even got to the considerations of multiple intelligences, such as the very important topic of how Emotional Intelligence factors into learning. More posts on how technology can help in that arena later.

2. Engagement is key. Kids today have found technology engages and they are going to great lengths to get their hands on it. During a visit to EA Games in California a couple of years ago, A question was asked about the increasing incidence of Attention Deficit Disorder and computer gaming. The response from one gaming programmer: “We don’t really see that as an issue. A kid will sit and concentrate on a game for 17 hours in a week.” Technology has tremendous power to engage students. A wonderful report recently released by the National School Boards Association (I will post in further detail later) makes a fundamental shift in U.S. education thinking about online social networking: this is not something to be ignored. Kids are using it, learning from it, and schools need to be thinking of ways to engage students with it. Online social networking tools can be summed up in one word: participation. Participation through creative activities online. Students are engaged when they participate and technology makes it happen.

3. How do we move away from our current paradigm of teaching that increasingly ignores differences in how students learn and fails to keep up with emerging technologies that are capturing the undivided attention of kids today? Change must take place in our schools. Change is not an easy process in educational reform, but the K20 Center has found a way that can move a school in the right direction. Development of Professional Learning Communities has found student achievement increases as well as reforms in teaching practice. This is a school-wide cultural change that brings action research into the classrooms, leading to adoption of new pedagogies. But here’s the icing on the cake: technology makes a wonderful catalyst for change. The year-long work of the K20 Center in schools, using technology as a catalyst for change, has proven to be highly effective. And all this without adding content or pushing for more test preparation.

I only take issue with one aspect of the OK-ACTS program: the technology going into the schools has one wonders to engage students, but it has been primarily by taking existing curriculum and presenting it in new and engaging ways. Instead of a lecture, the teachers are making Powerpoint presentations and showing them on Smartboards. They are getting feedback using student response systems. This is not across the board. Some teachers are increasing student participation in the learning process by having the students create the Powerpoints, but it still fails to engage them at their level.

I’m working on it. But I need to find more research on how creativity can raise student achievement. Yuck. I hate having to revert to finding methods that increase test scores, but until NLCB leaves the learning alone, I’ll work with the system. Kudos to Marco Torres for bucking the system. I wish it were so easy for the majority of teachers.

A popular catch phrase in higher education, Service Learning resonates well with Mr. Stengel’s ideas for a national service plan. I first heard of Service Learning through initiatives begun at our own K20 Center*. A web search shortly thereafter on the topic lead me to this excellent paper, Filling in the Moat around the Ivory Tower, by Vachel W. Miller and David K. Scott (Scott was a previous Vice Chancellor of University of Massachusetts Amherst). The authors write about the creation of an integrative university and the necessity for creation of social capitol. They make two fundamental points about social capital and Service Learning. First, the authors bring the power of service learning in creating a sense of community:

Social capital refers to the level of reciprocity and voluntary associations between individuals in a community…Social capital accrues as a result of engagement, and service learning increases the potential of relationships to form between students and the larger world.

The “larger world” could have referred simply to anything beyond the campus, but the impact of a global market is most often felt in those communities needing the most help. The second point is that Service Learning should come as part of one’s education:

It would be naïve to imagine that students, after years of schooling that disconnects them from community life, would leap into community service after graduation. In order for a service-orientation to become an enduring dimension of learning outcomes in college, we must model community engagement, value community engagement, and provide structured opportunities for community engagement.

Schooling is where is must begin. In creating citizens or education system has the best opportunity to mold a form of community service. Mr. Stengel in the Time magazine article provides one example (#5. Institute a Summer of Service) of middle school graduates beginning community service. I say it can start earlier. I see no reason to involve elementary students in service activities, whether they are providing service to their school community, or neighborhoods. Service Learning should be a part of the spectrum of education. In the same issue, Carolyn Kennedy writes:

In fact, an early investment in service can pay off over a lifetime. The National Education Longitudinal Study of 1988, a trove of high school-related trend data, found that 42% of young people who volunteered in high school did so again eight years later. And a recent study in the American Educational Research Journal identifies community service during high school as a strong predictor of voting and volunteering in adulthood.

Mr. Stengel’s fourth point, Create an Education Corps, should be embedded into learning from the second grade, at all schools. Students should expect to see teacher volunteers at every grade level, as well as students volunteering to be mentors and tutors for younger grades. I am amazed to see how much my six year old daughter looks up to the kids from second through fifth grade. I would be even more amazed to see the older kids in her classroom helping out. This is leadership development, democratic education, and where participatory culture should be.

The ninth point in the Time article, Start a National Service Academy, is another wonderful idea. The creation of a service academy that would rival West Point in the caliber of its students, yet provide the next generation of leaders solving community problems would be a first for our nation, a concept already in practice in other countries.

It’s time we create the structures in our education system that will lay the foundation for a future national service generation.

*The K20 Center does have a program to foster community leadership, the interdisciplinary Master of Arts degree with an emphasis in Educational and Community Renewal. It is a wonderful program that brings a full breadth of what makes a community and how to discover and tackle its needs. The program includes a required service learning project. The center is also working on service learning initiatives with OU’s College of Enginnering, and is planning initiatives with other colleges. Alas, we do not have a formalized program for K-12.