Who is really in control?

Schank (2011) laments that education on the computer has been, by and large, a disappointment, over-hyped and under-realized. He argues that  computer-based training has meant putting a book on a computer, allowing the student to press a button to get the next page and take a quiz at the end (Shank, 2011). Edutainment and the rise of the Virtual University according to Schank (2011) however should cause all higher education institutions to reconsider how they are going to deliver the education experience.
With access to information now available 24 hours a day students are starting to take control of their own learning and they can now access large amounts of high quality and increasingly organised resources online. This movement is potentially short circuiting the current education system and its approach of controlling the flow of information through the classroom experience. Sir Ken Robinson draws parallels with the current system and a factory production line producing batch after batch of educated individuals. This description assumes a uniformed, controlled and quality assured environments. However in reality outside of the confines of current institutions learning may be more sporadic and student led - accessing information, concepts and theories that are consumed and processed at a pace that is out of sync with traditional curriculum's. Watters, (2011) in her review 10 Open Education Resources You May Not Know About (But Should) has highlighted this movement with key examples of online communitees and resources that students can access including key sites such as the Khan Academy

P2PU: The Peer 2 Peer University is a grassroots open education project in which anyone can participate.

OpenStudy: is a social learning network where independent learners and traditional students can come together in a massively-multiplayer study group.

NITXY: NIXTY is building a learning management platform that supports open education resources.

OER Glue: a browser-based tool that will allow students and teachers to “glue” together OER resources online.

iUniv: is a Japanese startup that is building web and mobile apps to support and make social video and audio OCW content.

Smarthistory: is a free and open multimedia website that demonstrates how very heavy, pricey, and obsolete the traditional art history textbook is.

CK-12: The CK-12 Foundation’s Flexbook platform provides free, collaboratively-built and openly-licensed digital textbooks for K-12.

Flat World Knowledge: This is a college textbook publisher whose books are published under an open license.

Connextions: Connextions is a repository of educational content, containing over 17,000 openly licensed learning modules.

Can we control this? - Unlikely
Can we quality assure this? - Unlikely

Should we embrace this?
The potential for virtual learning environments is in its infancy but potentially empowering millions of individuals worldwide. Teachers and lecturers may need to challenge their current role and acknowledge that students are increasingly becoming an equal partner in deciding the direction of their own learning.

References

Watters, (2011) in her review 10 Open Education Resources You May Not Know About (But Should) http://blogs.kqed.org/mindshift/2011/05/10-open-education-resources-you-may-not-know-about-but-should/ accessed January 2012

Schank, R. (2011) in  THE DISRESPECTED STUDENT — OR — THE NEED FOR THE VIRTUAL UNIVERSITY, http://edge.org/conversation/the-disrespected-student-or-the-need-for-the-virtual-university accessed January 2012

Sports Development Termly update

The first term of the 2011- 2012 academic year has proven to be challenging. The initial intensive sessions were comfortable for the class of students used to having information presented to them. They however have initially found it difficult to process that they would not be passively sitting there having me talk at them for six months. There was a air or nervousness that they would be tested not just on their knowledge but also their practical ability to deliver. I have my assessment framework to ensure that students commit to delivering activities, events and services within the university. It is clear I will have to build confidence within the group supporting them to take the giant leap from discussing theory into experimenting with their ideas. For some this seems exciting for others it will be a test. However these students are 6 months away from the start if their long term careers the safety net of education is slipping away and having this opportunity will start that next transition into the professional world. My challenge leading in to the second term is to encourage and support them in delivering action. For many this will be their first time taking the lead on a project so I must remain patient yet ensure they over come their anxieties.

Gamification of Education

What do we mean by the gamification of education?

Lee and Hammer (2011) suggest that schools already have several game-like elements for example students receiving points for completing assignments which translate to “badges,”or grades. Students are rewarded for desired behaviors and punished for undesirable behaviors using this common currency as a reward system (Lee and Hammer, 2011). However, McGonigal, (2011) argues that regardless of these parallels schools are generally failing to engage students whereas the video game and virtual world are excelling. Gee, (2008) suggests that gamers voluntarily invest countless hours in developing their problem-solving skills within the context of games, developing what McGonigal (2011) identifies as personal qualities such as persistence, creativity, and resilience through extended play.

According to Lee and Hammer, (2011) gamification projects offer the opportunity to experiment with rules, emotions, and social roles. At the micro-scale -- individual teachers who gamify their own class structures (Laster, 2010) at the macro level new schools, using game design as an organizing framework for teaching and learning (Corbett, 2011).

How can gamification be used?

Koster, (2004) suggests that games guide players through the mastery process and keep them engaged with potentially difficult tasks potentially according to Lee and Hammer (2011) providing students clear, actionable tasks and promises them immediate rewards instead of vague long-term benefits. Games according to Lazarro, (2004) invoke a range of powerful emotions, from curiosity to frustration to joy. McGonigal, (2011) argues that for many games provide many positive emotional experiences, such as optimism and pride. Lee and Hammer, (2011) argues that games maintains a positive relationship with failure by making feedback cycles rapid and keeping the stakes low compared to schools, where the stakes of failure are high and the feedback cycles long (Lee and Hammer, 2011). Indeed Pope (2003) argues that there is little wonder that students experience anxiety, not anticipation, when offered the chance to fail.

It may be argued that games allow players to try on new identities and roles, asking them to make in-game decisions from their new vantage points (Squire, 2006; Gee, 2008) yet according to Klopfer, et al (2009) this focus on playfulness may require freedom - the freedom to experiment, to fail, to explore multiple identities, to control one’s own investment and experience.

As a framework I can see many positives in exploring this in my own teaching. However at a broader level the entire education system may need to be rewired and re-educated before this approach is embedded or accepted.

References

Corbett, S. (2010, September 19). Learning by playing: Video games in the classroom. Retrieved from: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/19/magazine/19video-t.html

Gee, J. P. (2008). Learning and games. In Katie Salen (Ed.) The ecology of games: Connecting youth, games, and learning (John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation series on digital media and learning). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Klopfer, E., Osterweil, S. & Salen, K. (2009) Moving learning games forward. Retrieved from:

http://education.mit.edu/papers/MovingLearningGamesForward_EdArcade.pdf

Koster (2004). A theory of fun. Paraglyph Press. New York, NY.

Lee, J. J. & Hammer, J. (2011). Gamification in Education: What, How, Why Bother? Academic Exchange Quarterly, 15(2).

Laster, J. (2010). At Indiana U., a class on game design has students playing to win. Retrieved from: http://chronicle.com/blogs/wiredcampus/at-indiana-u-a-class-on-game-design-has-students-playing-towin/21981

Lazzaro, N. (2004). Why we play games: Four keys to more emotion without story. Retrieved from: http://www.xeodesign.com/xeodesign_whyweplaygames.pdf

McGonigal, J. (2011). Reality Is Broken: Why Games Make Us Better and How They Can Change the World. Penguin Press. New York, NY.

.

Pope, D. (2003). Doing school: How we are creating a generation of stressed-out, materialistic, and miseducated students. Yale University Press.

Squire, K. (2006). From content to context: Videogames as designed experience. Educational Researcher, 35(8): 19-29.