Blurts

One of the challenges of the “digital content stores” is now how to encourage user discovery. This recent post from a frustrated app developer explains the problem. The post describes the frustration of generating an app and making it available through the Apple store (could be any of several companies selling digital products). There are some interesting data in this post – charts showing the year by year increase in the number of apps and the year by year decline in the continued use of any given acquired app. To be honest, my behavior fits this model. I have pretty much locked into the same half-dozen or so apps for the past three years or so.

It seems very possible the original creativity encouraged by this model is now past its peak. Consumers seem to have moved past the original excitement that encouraged exploration and producers will likely lose their enthusiasm as the reality of this lack of interest becomes obvious in the return on their investment of time and resources.

As much as  marketers annoy me, it seems obvious that promoters of some form will be necessary to encourage continued innovation. Perhaps promotion is the next big thing.

There is this phrase “teacher proof” that is typically interpreted as a negative comment on commercial educational materials. I guess the idea is that educators who are experienced should not be forced to use “recipe” lesson plans.

I have been thinking about this concern. What has led to an analysis of this issue for me is the conflict between the advocacy of so many for inquiry learning experiences (e.g., PBL) and the cumulative data on the topic. How do you reconcile the meta-analyses showing direct instruction is more effective that teacher-facilitated inquiry experiences with the interest in inquiry? Why do some researchers (e.g., Deanna Kuhn) demonstrate the effectiveness of a model of problem-based learning when the generic approach can be shown to be less effective? This situation bothers me and it bothers me that it does not seem to bother “true believers”.

Here is a paper I think deserves some attention. This position (note the link in this paper to the full study) argues less effective teachers can improve student performance by using good lesson plans and this adjustment may have more immediate benefits than professional development efforts. I suppose this is not a popular position, but the supporting research does deserve careful consideration.

Yes – I did use the title to get your attention. The idea is to get folks to grapple with ideas that they might reject without consideration.

Screen time is an interesting and challenging topic for a technology advocate. It is difficult to advocate for an activity that allows for user control and that can be directed toward nonproductive and even dangerous ends. I have tried to consider whether there are older activities that might provide guidance. Free reading might fall into this category, but I cannot say that reading has the same downside. Television viewing is probably a better example. Technology use can be like many forms of television viewing (passive and pointless), but technology offers the opportunity for more user control and greater participation.

Here is a good source from Digital Media Central that takes a position and offers links to some of the resources leading to this position.

We recommend that instead of limiting screen time, parents should instead ask themselves and their children questions about screen context (where, when and how digital media are accessed), content (what is being watched or used), and connections (whether and how relationships are facilitated or impeded). This will provide a sounder basis for family decision-making than just watching the clock.

People working in education likely fail to appreciate the amount of money that is involved. Personnel costs are immense, but this reality is overlooked because individual salaries are low. The process of education requires a variety of goods and services (my topic) – educational resources including technology, Internet access, management software, professional development, and even the cost of conference participation. Yes, even sending school personnel to a conference such as ISTE is a sizeable investment. No denying there is big money to be made.

I am not suggesting that anyone should propose we do education on the cheap. All involved in any facet of the enterprise must receive a reasonable return on their time and commitment of skills. I emphasize ALL here. Even those involved may expect that others contribute with little or no return. I agree with Gary Stager on this issue  (emphasis on the specificity of my agreement).

There is a different perspective. Some large companies are willing to provide resources at no or very low cost. This type of commitment has received recognition and encouragement from Department of Education Technology’s “Go Open” initiative.  I am not certain what I think of such programs. At a gut level I distrust such commitments. I assume there must be a motive that is typically not acknowledged and whatever funds are required must come from somewhere. I also question the match between what is offered and what is needed.

Why are free or low-cost goods or services likely to be available? Here is a list that applies in at least some cases. It is not always clear when which motives apply.

Motives

• Ads – traditional model for free or low-cost resources (newspapers, web content)
• Collection of information that can be sold or used (store loyalty cards, many Internet companies)
• Access to community (music streaming to encourage concert attendance, blogging to encourage paid presentation fees)
• Brand loyalty – inexpensive tech equipment to encourage later purchases
• Good will is good publicity

Obviously, schools recognize at least some of these motives. Sometimes there are reasons schools are unwilling to accept (ads and data collection from those under 18 would be examples). For example, the Google school programs do not present ads and limit public exposure of students acknowledging that some commercial motives will not be tolerated.  We pretty much reject certain motives directed at the young we tolerate for older individuals because we question the ability of the young to understand when such motives are present. I sometimes wonder if such awareness is as age-limited as we assume.

In keeping with my belief that we must support those offering services and resources, I find the incentives to the providers to be acceptable as long as the motives are known by all involved.

The one issue that does concern me in the way providers are now committing to “Go Free” concerns what is being offered. Many commitments seem to be existing services that are either already free or are scaled to include educators or students. So the services Google offers to students are already available to you and me at no cost (ignoring the ads, data collection, etc). Google has layered a very useful management system on top of these services and limited the application of revenue streams (ads). The financial hit here is in the commitment to develop and maintain the management systems. Scaling the infrastructure a bit is not a big deal for a company this immense. Still, the tools provided have important educational applications and these tools would be worth paying for.

The commitments I presently find less significant are those that organize and serve the resources developed by others. Amazon Inspire strikes me as falling into this category. I agree that locating resources can be a challenge, but this is what educator sharing already provides to those educators who are tied into a PLN. The content is the challenge. I would be far more impressed if Amazon would waive its 30% on educational content provided through schools or universities.

Singling out Amazon is not fair and we all should appreciate the effort. I am just indicating what I think are the greatest actual needs. I kind of have a similar reaction to the efforts of the Department of Educational Technology. I don’t see organizing resources or services to be the main problem and I do not think encouraging free is a good long term solution. I would be more supportive of the Department offering commissions or subsidies for the development and deployment of relevant services and resources. This type of “grant” program is the way research is supported in higher education. The assumption, I think, is that the competition encourages quality and compensates the productive.

There is a well-established literature in science education that points to the value of conceptual conflict. If what follows interests you, I would suggest searching online and exploring the work in greater detail.

The concept of conceptual conflict addresses the important observation that we can learn about some topics either informally or formally. For example, much of the work in this area concerns physics. Many have never taken a physics course, but everyone is exposed to physical phenomena. We experience the results of electricity flowing in electrical circuits, gravity, and the laws of motion daily. It might be useful to argue that we learn some things formally (school) and other things informally (daily life). What educators hope is that what students learn in school will influence behavior in daily life. Psychologists would call this transfer. Others might call it useful or practical learning.

It turns out that informal learning and formal learning can result in different ways of understanding. In addition, the informal “model” tends to be triggered by daily stimuli and the formal model by school stimuli. Hence, it may not be the case that learners forget what they learn in school, it can be that this understanding is ignored when it should be relevant.

Conceptual conflict is the remedy to the inconsistent models of a given phenomenon. It results from the activation of the flawed informal model so that the inconsistency with the formal model becomes obvious. This conflict is hoped to reconcile the two models. The science education research demonstrates the success that is possible demonstrating phenomena (predicting a physical occurrence) based on personal flawed models and then demonstrating reality (the voltage in the two wires leading to a light bulb is the same).

The simultaneous existence of flawed and correct models would seem a possibility in any situations allowing direct observation. Hence, psychology, education, economics, etc. likely allow flawed models to exist and be resistant to informed efforts at modification. Any personal model of a phenomenon could be flawed or more likely partially flawed. This was really the key to Piaget’s observation regarding cognitive development (remember Piaget). Piaget recognized that we were model builders through the process of equilibration resulting from accommodation and assimilation. A model works until it is challenged by what it cannot explain and then the experience causing the conflict may generate a change in the model.

Experiencing personal conceptual conflict is what all learners should be seeking. Avoiding conflict is the lazy way out and limits personal growth. If your PLN includes only those pushing what you endorse or find compelling, you are being conceptually lazy. If you are not willing to seriously consider challenges to your understanding, there will likely be blind spots you fail to recognize.

I think I see so many examples of this when it comes to problem-based and project-based learning. I have a similar reaction to a superficial exposure to coding experiences. There is so much solid research demonstrating the inefficiencies of these approaches endorsing the ideas without careful consideration is flawed thinking. There is some solid research demonstrating circumstances in which these approaches have value. This is one of those situations when the model must be sophisticated to tease apart the differences in application. The degree of success of learners depends on educators making the effort to build sophisticated models.

Embrace conceptual conflict. If you rely on a PLN for personal development, make certain your PLN includes those examining issues from different, but legitimate perspectives.