Born to buy #1

Moving the discussion of the role of brandification in education along … I must thank @dandonahoo for bring this article to my attention. Clay “Here comes everybody” Shirkey has banned devices and media in his classes. For the freshman, this in really important news. Shirky was quoted, re-quoted and used to justify the “shift” debate around 2007/8. This might be too early Twitter for some, but essentially, his stories and discussion about read/write and social connections was hugely influential on the vanguard of edtech. I won’t name names, suffice to day Shirky was considered a seminal figure in the movement to reform classrooms and numerous correlations drawn between “the crowd” and the emerging social-media communications of teachers who found credibility in the whole “web2.0″ debate.

This is what makes this story BIG news. Shirky’s idea (and book) is a cornerstone of the binary new media vs old media debate and without question has been the shoulders that the ISTE/ACEC famous held up as having ‘the future vision for education’. Shirky is a central cultural figure to the ‘early crowd’ interested in connecting ‘school’ and ‘media’ into ‘classroom visions’. In their eyes, consumer culture and mass communications could be tamed and held to account in educational uses/settings. It wasn’t just Shirky who had a had a “laissez-faire attitude towards technology use in the classroom”, schools have not fully appreciated the changes in media either. Reseach is increasingly critical of ‘screen time’ and exposing students to it whom have little ‘media education’ history and highly managed school and home time. [see link in the article].

And now, he has set up set up a pile of rules to be a media/tech filter himself, as his students are “distracted” and unable to manage time effectively [in his view].

I think the issue here is not that the principles of consumption/production have shifted, nor has the ideology of mass schooling. Teachers simply identified with Shirky’s observations and for a short time, the idea of connecting classrooms and using electronic communications was a) manageable b) limited to few software/services and c) relatively under exploited by mega-brands such as Apple, Google and Pearson.

Five years later, the explosion of media, devices and granularity of media subjects and modalities has resulted in as Shriky says “Those gains never materialize; instead, efficiency is degraded”.

In all sectors of education, students have been encouraged to bring in devices. While this is clearly politico-economic, another neoliberal step away from centralised provision and responsibility — we are experiencing elevated consumerism being presented as “more freedom”. This seems to be the central concern Shirky has with technology in his classroom — and wrestling with his other arguements that freedom can be assisted though technology (esp, regime change and information production).

The approach to technology in education so far has been seen/measured in terms of ‘adoption’, where students (with devices) are being counted and often used to justify educational rationales about what EdTech is, and why “we” should be doing X (usually X = things small groups like, benefit or control).

But 2014 isn’t like 2008. Media and devices are saturated with brand interference and consumerism. The distraction levels are alarming, because few students have ever had a media education as media scholars have argued is essential. What will be interesting now is whether or not, EdTech pays attention once again to their founding father … or whether the markting juggernaught of self-gratification resulting in brand/tool obsessive behavior can be tamed.

What if schools still believe what was true of 2004, 2008, 2010, 2012 is still true today? Low tech schooling is alive and well it seems.

Google Academy: Where’s the evidence? What’s the intent?

I dislike Google Teacher Academy (GTA). Not because I dislike the so called “free” products, or believe people should never meet, but because it is consumer public-theatre which in a neoliberal marketplace, deliberately creates winners and losers.

GTA works though behaviorism and follows decades of refinement by advertising and marketing theorists and practitioners. First, it uses a relational strategy (emotional broadcasts) then a transitional strategy (reviews, social media, search, in-group influencers, out-group ignorants) and finally the transactional strategy (direct and indirect sales).

Google Teacher Academy is a further example of the commodification of childhood. Without any empirical evidence, Google sets out to create competition among teachers, to create ‘aspirational value’ in it’s products and obedience with it’s ideology. It personifies this though the “every man” advertising representation. They select in-group personalities (with social influence) to defuse it’s consumer cultural agenda, because ‘every-man’ is someone just like us. Of course there is a pay-off for actors who amplify and fall into line in terms of financial and social capital (the biggest winners) and then there is everyone else — the losers.

Education is a civic institution. It is supposed to be about scholarship and resist commodification, question political-economic rhetoric and be alert to social-manipulation. Google actively attack these principles with GTA. In comparison, those researchers who are working to improve education are burdened with the task of collecting evidence and using human ethics. This doesn’t make them laggards, late adopters or other ‘out-group’ members. It makes them accountable, evidence based and ethical. Any claim that ‘research’ is out of step with culture, must first be very clear about what culture is — and what happens when corporations are not called to account. This is the subject of countless dystopian novels — the corporatisation of habitus, the removal of liberty.

I can’t imagine for a second that Google bothers itself with such things as it sets up it’s consumer theatricals in the name of ‘innovation’ and ‘elite teaching’. This is little more than a consumer-competition, like winning tickets to the circus by collecting tokens and writing a ‘tie-breaker’ limerick.

For me, the toolset isn’t important. Lots of people use Google’s toolset, so what? Its the false representation of behavioural marketing as scholarship that irks me. It does not promote new or better thinking, alternative solutions, but indoctrinates teachers and reduces the basic freedoms children are struggling to maintain

If I am wrong, please feel free to leave me references to studies/journals which show GTA has any benefit and more importantly how it’s design avoids harm. It obviously delivers Google and associates significant financial rewards.

10,000 off foot of distance

Without doubt, educational centres know what modern, connected, blended learning is. They know what is heading south of the wall too. However, calls for bravery have been said often and are ignored. No one listened to John Snow either and Winter is coming.

What prevents engagement are mindsets which are more interested in micro-culture and self importance than what the masses want and can already do. There is a mental separation which creates a misguided sense that the masses are not the elites, therefore need to be told what they want or are simply inconsequential.

You can be the most correct, most published, most viable candidate for job in theory and never engage a community enough for it to want to follow you. On the other hand, you can be someone who creates community because you see the mass as essential to cultural production and fill screens and rooms with you ideas.

How do you know if you’re engaging the community? Count the bums on seats not how brave the rhetoric is.

Minecraft and childrens consumption of media

I find it odd that adults often justify their children’s use of Minecraft as educational. What we know is that children have been targeted as subjects and sites of consumption, and that psychology has a close relationship with advertising. Games have significantly disrupted the political economic model of the ‘consumer society’ and its use of mass media. What challenges psychology is that games such as Minecraft defy their experimental designs and focus on individual behaviour and cognition.

Minecraft demands a focus on ‘the masses’ which psychology believes is detrimental, and is of course neither a politically neutral science or are their negative claims about games proven. Minecraft shifts the cultural focus from consumption to production. That is what freaks out mass media and advertising, and therefore spooks their friends in psychology. This is the worst case scenario of John Watsons followers … that people are not made happy and docile by consumption … they want to produce and change the corporeal and virtual world.

this is not a bad thing for childhood. it is far more significant than whether of not kids are learning about math. this is a battle for freedom.

Cool tools for schools?

In numerous posts, I’ve expressed a concern that “EdTech” reduces children’s freedom. I believe educators have a social responsibility to recognise this danger and take action to avoid it. The current marketplace is unsurprisingly built on consumer platforms, not educational theory.

Educational theory is not the exclusive domain for examining technology in the classroom, nor is it more correct. One obvious reason for this is the ongoing gendering of technological subjects themselves, despite education being painfully aware of the problem and causes. Try as we might, Piagian theories of childhood development (based on chronology, gender, class and ethnicity) fails to account of pre-teen media and marketing. Our experiences as consumers (teachers, parents, children) do not allow us to make choices the context of a ‘free’ market. This problem is compounded by narrow ideologies and approaches to school governance.

I also have have concerns about the use of the neovernacular term “PLN” (Personal Learning Network) to describe digitally mediated peer-network cultures, knowledge networks and so on. From what I have read on ‘popular’ academic blogs and seen in presentations, the PLN includes little discussion and makes no account for the symbolic group membership and display rituals. These are two key aspects of the marketplace and thereby influence cultural meanings and consumer actions. The very fact teachers feel a need to have (and talk about) a “PLN” is representative of consumer need to make social arrangements around both symbolic and material resources. The PLN is used as consumer-segregation and therefore better understood using consumer culture theory than educational theory. The PLN is a thematically used to separate the “cool” from the “uncool”, the enlightened from the ignorant masses. Not everyone can “have” a PLN, and membership is embedded in manifested products.

I argue that children’s freedoms are not simply being frozen by teachers who do not readily adopt technology (where it is available), but made worse though the symbolic neovernacular representations by sub-cultures which actively erode the potential of social responsibility and equity. Reading the messages teachers post on social-media, there is an observable gap between the symbolic and material resources of private and public education. If you like, “social media”, most notably Twitter, has become a site for erosion and any criticism is a taboo. The very idea that teachers and technology could be eroding children’s freedoms and limiting their media education is preposterous.

The Internet is a place where children actively construct narratives of gender, identity, class — and in turn how they discover themselves. The way in which this is orchestrated, the separatist nature of discussions (by domain, subject, technology, geography etc.,) is the evidence of the consumer culture dominating the actions of participants. Through this arrangement, I argue that commercial conflicts (Teachers who push/force/advocate for brands such as Google, Apple etc) clash with “citizenship”. Furthermore the use of online “sites” such as “Cool Tool for Teachers” is symbolic of the intentional separation of “winners” and “losers” by separating the “cool” from the “un-cool” using highly commercial social arrangements.

I realise this view won’t be popular, however as I said at the beginning, there are many ways to examine the impact of educational technology on society. I would like to point at rich data extracted from the billions of hours applied to “EdTech” as beneficial to learning. I can see sales figures, I can see teachers fighting each other to become branded elites, but I don’t see much in the way of researched benefits. To be taken seriously “EdTech” must produce reasonable evidence about how children use media in the school age years and outside of the context of their messy everyday lives — and to justify why this set of popular ‘cool tools’ and social arrangements (PLN etc)are not simply a result of commonly understood consumer marketing methods.

Last Orders: Flipped Classroom and dead pixels.

Screen Shot 2014-09-20 at 10.40.03 am

The topic of flipped classrooms is one which I swear has followed me around this year like a black dog. I first heard someone say it in 2008, but no doubt someone has claimed credit for inventing it, which I can’t be remotely bothered to find out. Clarkson once said that Jaguar cars impress the neighbours … but only if the neighbours know nothing about cars. That seems to sum up how I feel about 99% of the representations of flipped classrooms.

The simplistic binary of moving media-based information to before class, thus allowing in class to be “more valuable” or “better used” largely assumes a false binary, or perhaps a lack of experience. The phrase is handed around with other buzzwords yet fails to address that many (of us) have been using media well for years. Our only failure was not to take the opportunity to valorize it in pursuit of power or reputation.

The use of lecture or classroom space to ‘deliver’ is not the fundamental challenge in school or university. We know that students have access to media — and we also know they are not (yet) as digitally savvy as the online edu-rhetoric (in flipped classrooms suggests). Flipped is constantly used as a token or signal for innovation and reform based on numerous unproven claims.

This also deliberately denies more broad discussion about casualisation, increased demands on curriculum and so on — which seem much more important than how you take your tea – one lump or two? Flipped classroom places advocates on a socially constructed pedestal and extends the technologically deterministic reform agenda ignoring the reality that amount of media-education students receive is decreasing in real terms – as is the time we spend trying to teach. The erosion of teaching-labour in the face or climbing demands and expectations is unsustainable. Ultimately it’s only those with a) a full time role and b) a full time work load that allows media creation time and learning about media who can do it. It seems that most of those talking about flipped classrooms are unburdened by things like casual-contracts, poor equipment and lack of media development training. So if you’re not getting cut-though on your flipped classroom agenda, then it’s perhaps that the corporeal world most of us live in has quite different pressures and priorities which we didn’t create and do our best to work within. We’re not media ignorant, laggards or late adopters.

Flipped classrooms will get you noticed it seems, like owning a Jag. Provided those clapping think Jags are cool. I’m not discussing ‘flipped classrooms’ anymore, it’s a dead-pixel.

Higher Ed 2024

from a recent Educause depiction of higher education in 2024 …

Library personnel, as well as other campus support staff, meet with students either online or offline. Hands-on learning occurs everywhere, in and out of classrooms. Old-fashioned maker culture and the digital world play off of each other, dialectically. Media classes (e.g., art, computer science, media, literature) combine media production with studies.

I winced at the vision of “other support staff” which maintains the upstairs/downstairs arrangement. This once again diminishes the value of non academic pay cheques. Who else is going to create this vision if not “librarians and other support staff”. Why assume they too would not find alternative arrangements … And be doing something else … Say working online, from home in global courses? This assumption that support staff are little more than a pit pony … Is deeply problematic, given this is a “futurist” expert view.

In a decade? This also seems optimistic given the drum beat of educational development so far. Without radical change in how people are employed and then progress in the meritocracy this vision seems to ignore the increasing casualisation, swing funding and resistencia of academics welded onto narrow technological and recruitment fairways.

Be nice if it happened, keep shuffling, there is a better future I’m sure.

Is PBL the better Flipped Classroom?

Background: I was very fortunate to have been at a school ten years ago where the boss introduced PBL (project based learning) following his sabbatical trip the USA.

Despite head-office skepticism, he pushed the agenda along, finding funds to send a few of us to some heavy-duty training in the USA. They furnished us with a US-Model of PBL, which we then set about adapting towards the AU system. It radically changed the school and the learning. This was one man willing to look at a new idea, but encountering many in the process. History represents this as an Institution system initiative, but that as anyone who was there will tell you — that’s just politiks — it was a smart leader who had a vision. As I’m also a designer and also teach arts and industrial tech … the rhetorical depiction of the ‘traditional classroom’ never lent itself to my experience, so for me PBL was a welcome extension of what I was already doing … and even now game-based learning is a step beyond PBL.

More recently, I’ve heard “Flipped Classrooms” being dragged out as “innovation”. This seems often to be on the basis of a “new-broom leader” trying to impress, rather than assuming all classrooms are chalk and talk. In fact, many of these depictions simply show these people are more adept at memorising and repeating pithy quotes and buzzwords that they are at creating student centered learning. Most teachers are not stuck in the 20th Century mindset, but they are continually depicted this way in order to validate someones assertions and importance.

For PBL teachers, flipped classrooms are absolutely nothing remarkable. For a start PBL is not regulated by modernist binaries of ‘classwork’ and ‘homework’ and uses media to prompt ideas and directions rather than instruct. I tend to assume those whom have delivered ‘expert’ content to novices in ‘traditional’ ways tend to fixed on one method and then set about arguing they have a better method. They don’t do what Brother Patrick did, and take a walk into the unknown with an open mind that what they find might be useful. Being correct and important all the time seems a terrible burden to carry — but useful if you’re a career-tribute I guess.

Can we teach PBL to pre-service teachers, using a PBL classroom? – Absolutely we can (and are). There is no reason to believe that pre-teachers are married to the methods they experienced in school as being the ones they will use. I find students are very adept at offering up better ways to learn, and seem troubled by the idea that they should become ‘like their teachers’. Every student can tell a story about a teacher that didn’t follow the 20th Century method which flipped-types use as a basis for their innovation. So before you blow a fortune on video or run up another playlist — consider that before “Flipped Classrooms” has been a method/model which has proven highly successful for decades, and gets even better if you use media in sympathy with modern times.

The HSC of the future?


, , ,

As I am currently travelling between edu-realms, working and teaching in Higher Ed and K12, it is impossible not to notice how the role communications now plays in widening the gap between “winners” and “losers” though the ongoing marketisation of education in this wide brown land. Today, as I walked out of Central Station, a dozen ‘promotional girls’ in gym pants and t-shirts were passing out leaflets in front of motor scooters hauling mobile bill boards. None seemed to pick up the leaflets disinterested punters dropped as they crossed the road.

They were promoting a ‘school’ called Talent 100, founded by some guy with a perfect ATAR result who will, for a fee, share his secrets of success as you enroll on a course, from year 9 onwards. All over the site are slick promotions which reduce learning to a systematic process of getting the highest grades by working ‘smarter’ not ‘harder’.

I tried to find any reference to scholarship in the website and failed. I did find a page listing the schools and the students who scored highly, which is yet more commodification of children. Glance down the list and you’ll soon notice that not only are these students “enrolled” here, but they are also enrolled at many of Sydney’s elite private schools too. Are we at that point where even the rich schools who are speeding away with funding, resources and staff now also need additional coaching services to reach that magic ATAR and get into the increasingly expensive Universities?

Just how wide is the gap between public and private and neoprivate ‘results orientated’ education. Should students be disqualified from sitting the HSC as they are clearly ‘cheating’ the vast majority of society out of the Australian “fair-go”.

In over a decade of being “online” it remains painfully obvious that despite the advocacy and brow beating, EdTech clearly favours those with money, while the public system is hamstrung by antiquated human-resource policies, staffing arrangements and dwindling pool of technological resources and staff (many who leave to join private schools or align with brands).

At what point could this service become an ‘open’ and staffed by teachers who simply want success for our society? Is this what the young chap who’s founded this wants? — is results driving his passion, or just eyeing off a market-place of parents whom value drill and skill learning, memorising and model answers? Are these students going to take society forward? … well the research into Higher Education success says no, but the marketing says yes.

I once thought that “online” would be a place teachers settled and created learning spaces for kids whom don’t have the kind of life advantages of neoprivate education — but it seems unlikely now, there are powerful factions, groups and alliances which present little in the way of ‘open education’ values of possibilities. Even ACEC (the IT Teachers annual convention is some $800) and needs imported speakers to flog tickets, which is another example of the barriers being created by the market-driven reforms of the last 20 years.

It makes me wonder if I should just buy-into this BS, like I buy a car which I’ll ditch in a few years. Take the financial hit and comply for each of my kids. Buying an education seems no different to buying an iPhone 6 when you have an iPhone 4 these days. Where do you think this will head in the next decade?

What is gamification?



I can go back and forth on this one, but I’ll go along with the idea of it being a deliberate exploitation of human nature (play). There are, as this video discusses, plenty of points of view. It’s just 10 minutes and run’s at a fair pace, but does manage to use some in-game footage and overlays to explain how it relates to the real world.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 290 other followers