Fold It! Serious Games Changing the World

On September 18, 2011, a startling scientific breakthrough was reported in the rather esoteric journal Nature Structural & Molecular Biology.  The article announced that the structure of the M-PMV protein, a key enzyme that allows the HIVvirus to multiply and grow into AIDS, had been discovered.  According to researchers, this discovery could lead to treatments and possibly a cure for AIDS.

What was truly startling about the article, though, was how the protein structure was discovered.  Scientists, engineers and automated computer programs had worked to determine the M-PMV structure for almost a decade with no success.  The researchers, feeling that they had exhausted what traditional science could offer, decided to reach outside of the scientific community.  They enlisted the help of a global network of gamers involved in the protein folding game known as Fold It!  It took the gamers only three weeks to solve the puzzle even though most had no background in biochemistry!

I first heard about Fold It! when reading Jane McGonigal's book, Reality Is Broken.  It was one of many examples of socially important, serious games.  In her book, McGonigal proposed that the same principles that game designers use to elicit maximum concentration and engagement in players could be applied to solving some of the world's most complex and perplexing problems.  The success of Fold It! certainly gives credence to her thesis.

So why were the gamers successful when the experts were not?  There are a number of possible reasons.  First, there were thousands of them working to solve the problem.  They were highly engaged because they were doing something they enjoyed, solving puzzles, and they were working on something that they viewed as "bigger than themselves."  Finally, they weren't experts!  Thus, they were not constrained by years of professional dogma and assumptions.

The M-PMV success story serves as only one example of how things are changing in the way the world approaches problems and determines success.  This has enormous implications for education.  The world no longer looks upon a diploma or degree as the ultimate indicator of competence.  Sometimes the most difficult problems can only be solved by "citizen scientists" whose enthusiasm, naivete and special skills make them best suited for a particular challenge.  In short, people willing to think "outside the box."

Many educators today are beginning to integrate games and game theory into their instruction.  In so doing, they hope to achieve the same level of engagement, concentration and commitment that the players of Fold It! exhibited.  This may not only enhance their students' learning, but also prepare them to play a vital role in changing the world.

Education as Science: A Dangerous Myth?

While driving to work last Monday, I was shocked to hear a report on NPR claiming that the long-held belief by educators that individuals exhibit different learning styles was a myth.  Throughout the day, the story was recounted in Twitter posts and newspaper headlines proclaiming, "Learning Styles Debunked by Scientists!"

The provocative headlines, of course, corresponded to the first day of school in many locations.  A day when news editors search for the ultimate back to school story.  It used to be a day when newspapers and the local news featured stories about excited youngsters excitedly climbing onto the school bus for the first time leaving behind tearful parents.  In the din of today's media, such human interest stories are no longer sufficient to capture the attention news outlets seek.

NPR based its story on a study published in Psychological Science in the Public Interest, a journal of the Association for Psychological Science.  It was interesting to note that the study appeared in the journal in December of 2009, but for some reason became "breaking news" on September 29, 2011.

When I explored further, I learned that the study was a meta-analysis of research on learning styles that focused on the research designs used.  Any study that did not use an experimental design featuring randomization and a pre-test post-test format was discarded as invalid.  The actual report can be downloaded at the link below:
http://www.psychologicalscience.org/journals/pspi/PSPI_9_3.pdf

Those who know me, know that I am passionate about science.  Although far from a scientist myself, I am enthralled by stories of the latest developments in nanotechnology, high-energy physics or quantum mechanics.  My greatest passion, though, is learning.  Not just my personal learning, but also helping others to learn and appreciate the learning experience.

So, given my passion for science and learning, one would think that I would be right on-board with the psychologist/scientists.  But, I am not.  In fact, I think that the concept of scientific teaching has actually hurt education over the years.

In addition to the journal article, the NPR story referenced a professor at the University of Virginia, Dan Willingham, who contends that teachers should not try to tailor instruction to different kinds of learners, that instead we should look for similarities in how our brains learn.  That does make a certain amount of sense, but isn't that how public schools currently operate?  Don't we test children to determine similar aptitudes and behavior, then we group them together and teach them all the same?  Isn't that what has become known as "teaching to the mean?"

We hear time and again that today's schools are based upon the industrial model developed in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.  Perhaps the most influential architect of that model was one Frederick W. Taylor, who introduced the concept of "Scientific Management."  Scientific management used data, most notably time-motion studies, to increase production and efficiency.  It also introduced a level of accountability as workers had to meet standards of performance lest they suffer adverse consequences.  Sound familiar?

NCLB's emphasis on "empirically" proven strategies, standards and accountability would certainly garner support from Frederick Taylor and his disciples.  In education, The purest manifestation of a "scientific" approach emerged in the late '70s and '80s with the introduction of Applied Behavioral Analysis.  ABA grew out of the behaviorist school of psychology and continues to have a voice in education, especially in the treatment of Autism.

The problem with "scientific" management or "scientific" teaching is that its focus is far too narrow for the dynamic environments we find in the 21st century.  This narrow focus constrains the model so that it can only impact the lowest levels of learning whether in the classroom or the workplace.  A scientific model, by definition, must focus on independent (the intervention) and dependent (the outcome) variables.  The learner plays an almost insignificant role in the process.  Where do higher-order thinking skills fit into such a paradigm, or are they soon to be debunked as well.

There are far more troubling issues facing education today than fidelity to empirically proven teaching methods.  A study by College of William and Mary professor Kyung Hee Kim shows a decline for the first time in creativity in America's school children.  Now that's worth worrying about!

Can Schools Survive in the Engagement Economy?

Recently, I attended the LEEF Conference sponsored by Harrisburg University.  LEEF stands for "Learning and Entertainment Evolution Forum."  This year's conference focused on the power of games for learning.  The audience was comprised of primarily corporate, military and higher education instructors.  K-12 education had a very small representation.

The first keynote presentation entitled, "Fun is Not the Enemy of Work," caused me to experience a flashback to one of my earliest experiences as an educator.  Actually, I wasn't really an educator yet.  I was enrolled in my final teacher preparation course taught by an elderly female professor whose reputation struck fear in the heart of every teacher candidate.  Her course was a right of passage.

As the course was coming to an end, the white-haired professor looked down at us with her galvanizing stare and proclaimed, "Remember, sometimes the students are the enemy!"  And with that we were sent forth into the teaching profession having successfully completed boot camp and with a full understanding of the "Rules of Engagement."

That was in the mid 70's, a difficult time by anyone's standards.  It was a time of changing values and social upheaval.  Students came to school with wildly different experiences and expectations.  The entertainment industry began to focus on the youth demographic and teachers found themselves competing for student's attention.  It was not uncommon to hear teachers complain that their students now expected to be "entertained."

In the 80's the situation got much worse.  As cable television gradually replaced the broadcast networks, students not only wanted to be entertained, they wanted to have choices.  This was exacerbated by the rapid adoption of personal computers.

Schools and teachers simply did not have the time, expertise or resources to compete.  So, they didn't.  Schools remained unchanged, but it didn't matter.  Their mission was clear.  Provide students with the knowledge and discipline that they would need to become productive citizens.

Then the World Wide Web erupted.  Students could access information independently.  Video games became more and more entertaining, although still mainly two-dimensional.  The gap between the school environment and society became wider.  Computers began to pop up in classrooms, but their role in the educational process was murky at best.

Today, with the interactive web, multiuser immersive environments and sophisticated game design, students and their parents no longer simply want to be entertained.  They expect and demand to be "engaged."  Jane McGonigal, Director of the Game Research and Development for the Institute for the Future, calls this the "Engagement Economy."  Engagement is a powerful force.  It can elicit extremely high levels of concentration, effort and creativity.  Its ultimate expression is a sense of "Flow," when time seems to stand still.

Engagement requires context and meaning.  To be engaged, one must feel a sense of purpose that extends beyond the moment.  To be engaged is to have a profound experience.

As I sat listening to Nathan Verrill's keynote address and thought back to the words of my professor so long ago, I thought, "How the Rules of Engagement have changed."  And I wondered, can public schools survive in the Engagement Economy?

Thumbs Up...Thumbs Down?

"A world order is emerging that is characterized by connectivity, change and convergence."  Students must learn to deal with complexity from the earliest grades on.  Students need to develop the ability to see interrelationships and gain a better understanding of the complexity of technology and society.  - 2030 by Rutger Van Santen et.al. (2010).

The authors of 2030, two eminent scientists from the Netherlands, were discussing what was needed to meet the many great challenges that mankind will face in the next two decades.  Education played a critical role in meeting these challenges as the above attests.

Around the time that I read this, I attended the annual conference of the Pennsylvania Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.  While there, I attended a keynote presentation by Dr. Mike Schmoker, a respected authority in the area of school improvement.  Dr. Schmoker was both entertaining and engaging.  He set forth a clear path to school improvement that was concise and easy to understand.  All we needed to do, according to Dr. Schmoker, was to follow the tenets of Madeline Hunter's direct teaching.  In Dr. Schmoker's opinion, formative assessments could be as easy as asking for a "Thumbs Up or Thumbs Down!"  We've known this for years, Dr. Schmoker proclaimed.

Dr. Schmoker went on to tell the audience that technology was a distraction and that we should stop burdening teachers with trying to integrate it into their curriculum.  We should allow teachers who were not ready for such complicated stuff to develop the fundamentals of teaching before asking them to learn how to use technology to improve learning.

I found myself being seduced by the simplicity of it all.

As I shook myself from my brief reverie, I realized that Dr. Schmoker was describing the ideal teacher-centered, large-group classroom.  A classroom where the teacher transmits  knowledge and the pupils signal "message received" with a hardy thumbs up.  While this might have been appropriate in the mid 20th Century, a time coined the "Broadcast Era" by Don Tapscott, it is hardly adequate preparation for the "Participatory Era" of the 21st Century!

The idea that a "Thumbs Up or Thumbs Down" provides any reliable or useful information is preposterous.  How does it reveal depth of understanding or even how a teacher might adjust his or her strategy to accommodate student needs.  It simply provides the teacher with some confidence that it is okay to "push on."

In a student-centered classroom where students engage in learning rather than simply observe teaching, the lesson serves as the formative assessment.  In such a participatory setting, teachers are able to directly observe depth of understanding and level of mastery.  They can then provide customized instruction because they have far more information about why students are struggling.  Teaching in such a classroom is anything but simple!

Can this be done without technology?  Probably, but it can be done more effectively and efficiently with technology because, used correctly, technology can empower students.

As I reflected back on Dr. Schmoker's presentation I tried to imagine any other profession that would  tolerate a statement that active practitioners should not be required to utilize advanced techniques and technologies until they "learned" the basics of their profession.  Can you imagine such a statement at a medical conference?  Imagine a nationally renowned speaker suggesting that surgeons should be allowed to use outdated methods and technologies simply because they hadn't kept up!  Would you send you son or daughter to such a physician?

At a time when students are expected to be life-long, independent learners who will doubtlessly rely on technology to expand their knowledge and hone their skills;
At a time when technology permeates almost everything we do socially, personally and professionally;
At a time when the solution to almost every major problem that we face personally, as a nation or even as a global community calls for an understanding of advanced technologies;
At such a time, how can we as educators ask parents to send their children to the "successful" classroom that Dr. Schmoker describes?

When Style Overwhelms Substance

Last June, I had the good fortune to attend the 31st annual conference of the International Society for Technology in Education held in Denver, Colorado.  The opening keynote presentation, held in the expansive Wells Fargo Theater, featured the former vice-president of the World Bank, Jean-François Rischard.  The topic of Rischard's address was, "Global Problem-Solving and the Critical Role of Educators and Technology for Education."  I looked forward to the opportunity to hear a world leader share his insights and perspectives as to how educators could help to solve some of the world's gravest problems.

As I looked around the theater prior to the start of the evening's program, I was struck by the size of the congregation.  Thousands of educators from around the world filtered in, took their seats and examined the gifts left for them by the corporate sponsors.  The cavernous theater buzzed with excitement and anticipation.  Much of this was reflected in the back channel chat that the ISTE organizers encouraged via two huge displays at the front of the theater.

The evening began with welcoming and opening remarks.  This process took awhile, but the enthusiasm of the crowd did not diminish noticeably.  By the time Jean-François Rischard took the stage, I have to admit, I had begun to think about dinner.  Given the 5:45 - 7:00 PM time slot, I am sure that I was not alone.

Soon after Mr. Rischard began, it became apparent that the night's presentation focused on serious stuff.  The topics included climate change, extreme poverty, world hunger, the financial crisis and other equally challenging issues facing society.  It also became obvious, that Mr. Rischard believed that the facts surrounding these serious issues were compelling enough to energize the crowd before him and incite them to action.  Unfortunately, the back channel chat revealed that this was not the case.

Attendees began commenting on Rischard's poor presentation style.  Indeed, it was wanting.  Mr. Rischard read from horribly busy PowerPoints, spoke in a low monotone and even turned his back to the audience on occasion.  Soon, people began streaming out of the theater.  This was no doubt encouraged by the back channel discourse that seemed to justify such a response.

As I watched my colleagues leave the theater, I felt a bit embarrassed.  I shared their opinion that Mr. Rischard's presentation was far less than it could, or even should, have been.  Yet, I valued hearing from one who had a unique understanding of many of the problems that I had only read about.  Here was a world leader who actually valued education and educators.  A world leader who thought teachers and students played a serious role in addressing these problems.  But many in the audience could not tolerate the messy PowerPoints and dry (I may be being kind) presentation style.  I thought back to the frustration often expressed by teachers that students today, "always want to be entertained." 

Upon my return to the office, I shared my reaction to the mass exodus.  I expressed my belief that we, as educators, need to be deeply concerned about the issues discussed and that the behavior that I observed in Denver suggested that many of us are not.  In fact, I noted, the behavior suggested that we, too, want to be entertained. I stated my belief that we have a responsibility to respect the message regardless of the media or style of the presentation.

One of my younger colleagues vehemently disagreed.  She believed that the responsibility rested with the messenger.  She argued that the presenter, knowing the importance of his message, had an obligation to craft the message in such a way that people could appreciate its relevance.  This argument did not persuade me.

Later, I read a book called, Don't Be Such a Scientist, by Randy Olsen.  Olsen received his doctorate in biology from Harvard and was a tenured professor at the University of New Hampshire.  He also earned an MFA in cinematography from USC.  Olsen contended that scientists were trained to be poor communicators.  As he recounted presentations by scientists he had observed over the years, I immediately thought of Jean-François Rischard.

Olsen explained that scientists typically address only one organ in the body, the brain.  This, he stated, greatly reduces the audience since few people respond to information that is simply intellectual in nature.   To reach a diverse crowd of any appreciable size, Olsen argued, one must appeal to at least three additional organs.  To incite passion in the listener one must address the heart.  A message that engages the gut elicits humor and good will.  Venturing even lower, adding sex appeal to your presentation, promises to engage just about everyone.

Olsen's insight gave me a much greater appreciation of what occurred that night in Denver.  People gathering in a clearly festive mood over the dinner hour were not ready to hear with their brains alone.  This was exacerbated by the fact that the keynote was held over the dinner hour and during the opening celebration.  Rischard's message failed organically.

While Olsen and my young colleague made valid points,  I still feel that we, as educators, have a higher calling.  We must understand and value the importance of the message regardless of the media or the style.  Why?   Because in many cases, we are the ultimate messengers who must instill the passion needed to ensure that vital messages are heard and understood by others.  After all, isn't that what education is all about?

Are We Becoming Shallow?

In his book, "The Shallows," Nicholas Carr contends that the Internet, with its hyperlinks and constant interruptions, is robbing us of our ability to concentrate for extended periods of time.  This has an impact on many aspects of our lives, but nowhere more significantly than in our ability to read and reflect.

Carr supports his argument with brain research that demonstrates the impact that external stimuli and cognitive demands have on the neurological functioning of our brains.  Carr suggests that it took a great deal of time for humans to develop the deep reading skills that have proven so essential to our progress.  Indeed, Carr notes that it was the introduction of the book that made reading economical and convenient enough to allow people to engage in it for long periods of time.  This, in turn, trained our brains to concentrate on the written word and to reflect upon complex passages of text.

Today, according to Carr, most of what we read appears on a some type of screen.  The text is peppered with hyperlinks that entice us to click and surf.  Meanwhile, Twitter messages pop up on our screen, Skype lets us know that one of our friends has just come online and e-mail continues to grow in our ever-expanding in-box.  The Internet, Carr tells us, serves as a tool of distraction.  It encourages us to skim and to surf, rather than to read and reflect.

It would be easy to dismiss Nicholas Carr as a technophobe or Luddite.  To do so, however, would be a mistake.  His argument and concerns are valid and sincere.

Those who know me, know that I love to read.  I also embrace technology with an excitement that belies my age.  Yet, I have resisted purchasing an e-reader and continue to purchase hard cover books in which I highlight passages and make marginal notes.  I could, of course, do that and much more with an e-reader.  So why don't I?

Recently I read a book describing the work being done at the Large Hadron Collider in Geneva, Switzerland.  Having very limited formal training in science or mathematics, I found the terms and concepts associated with high-energy particle physics to be a challenge to say the least.  So as I read, I often found myself pulling out my Adroid phone to look up a term or a concept in Wikipedia or some other online resource.  Without such a tool, the literature would have proven impenetrable.  I likened it to having an expert standing by to answer my questions as they arose.  In this case, technology enabled me to read to a depth that would have otherwise been impossible.

This is very different, though, from the reading experience described by Carr.  Like Carr, I too find hyperlinks embedded in a text to be distracting and generally irrelevant.  I rarely follow them at all.  If I do find a link intriguing, I fight off the urge to surf and return to the link only after I have finished the article.

Hyperlinks in text are often  gratuitous.  They are there simply because the Internet makes them possible.  We have been conditioned, however, to click on the blue underlined text. Resisting doing so takes considerable restraint.  If the research cited by Carr is accurate, those who click often embark on an odyssey from which they never return.

So, what does this mean for us as educators?  Do we conclude that digital texts and e-readers are bad?  Do we avoid the Internet and return to our familiar paper bound texts?

Of course not!  But we do need to teach our students how to read digital text and to avoid being seduced by the hyperlink's siren song.  We not only need to evaluate the content of digital texts, but also the quality of the production.  Is it full of distractions, or does it provide a well constructed discussion of the topic capable of standing alone?  We need to help our students learn to be deep readers even in the cacophonous digital environment in which they live.

Whether reading online or in a book they got from the library, our students are constantly susceptible to digital distraction.  Managing these distractions is a critical skill that we must ensure our students learn.

Empathy - The Essential Skill

I recently attended a presentation by Alan November at the International Society for Technology in Education Conference in Denver.  November described two interviews that he conducted recently.  One was with the CEO of the world's largest bank and the other was with Jack Welsh, former CEO of General Electric.  November asked each of the business leaders what they believed was the most important skill that an employee could have in the business world today.  Although the interviews took place independent of one another, both CEO's gave the same response, "Empathy!"

November's story resonated with me because I had recently finished a book by Tim Brown, CEO of IDEO, a world leader in innovation and design.  Brown also identified empathy as an essential skill in business today.

Empathy?  Not a term one normally associates with the hard-nosed world of business.  The word evokes images of missionaries, social workers and dedicated health care providers. Yet according to Tim Brown and other business leaders, empathy is vital whether you are designing the next great cell phone or managing a luxury hotel.

So what is empathy?  Is it a skill?  Can it be taught?  According to both Alan November and Tim Brown it can and should be taught.

November defines empathy as the ability to view issues from the perspective of others.  In today's global economy, November contends, this is absolutely essential.  One way that teachers can help students learn how to shift perspective is to expose them to many points of view on the same issue.  November suggests that educators can help students to develop this ability by exposing them to news reports from different countries covering the same topic.  He also recommends using social media tools to enable students to discuss world events with other students from around the world.

Brown  views empathy as more than an intellectual understanding and appreciation of others' points of view.  For Brown, empathy entails the ability to understand and appreciate the experiences of others.  For instance, one premium hotel chain  pays for staff of all levels to visit their other hotels as guests, so they can understand and relate to the what guests experience when visiting their hotels.

One field that has suffered considerably due to a lack of empathy is science.  Back in the 1960's and 70's, according to Chris Mooney, author of Unscientific America, science and scientists were held in high esteem by the American public.  This was the hey day of the space program when people were glued to their TV sets watching astronauts travel through space while listening to the reassuring narration of Walter Cronkite and others tell the "story" of what was happening.

In recent decades, however, science and scientists have become further and further estranged from the public.  Scientists have developed an arcane language that few outside of their area of specialty can comprehend.  In the name of "pure science," scientists have disavowed responsibility for how the knowledge that they bring forth is used, preferring to be "agnostic."  The result, according to Mooney, has been a growing distrust of science and scientists.

As scientists have seen their research budgets cut, they have come to realize the need to reconnect with people.  That is exactly what astronaut Mike Massimino did during his flight on STS-125.  Those who followed Astro_Mike on Twitter, and there were over a million of us, experienced what it felt like to be an astronaut on the Space Shuttle including the disappointment as two launches were cancelled due to weather delays, the elation at viewing the earth from space and the mixed emotions felt upon returning to earth and resuming routine duties and family responsibilities.  Mike Massimino not only brought us along on his journey to space, but also let us tag along to his son's little league game when he came home.

Probably one of the scariest and least understood scientific undertakings currently underway involves the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) experiment being conducted by CERN in Geneva, Switzerland.  The LHC spans 100m underground crossing the border between Switzerland and France.  Scientists hope to recreate the conditions that occurred just after the Big Bang to further their understanding of the creation of the universe.  The subterranean experiment has led some to predict that the experiment will precipitate a black hole that will consume the earth.

Using Twitter, the scientists at CERN invited everyone to join them virtually in their underground laboratory.  Throughout the experiment, researchers posted minute by minute accounts of what was happening.  These included the expression of frustration and disappointment when faulty gaskets led to the need to shutdown the Collider for months and the overwhelming excitement that was felt when the first particles successfully collided at speeds never before achieved.

In both of the above examples, the doors were thrown open and anyone with the slightest interest was  invited to participate, albeit vicariously.  We, who accepted the invitation, got to know the scientists involved.  We learned not only what they were thinking, but also what they were feeling.

We found that the LHC laboratory was not the dark and sinister setting filled with mad scientists as some would have had us believe.  It was an atmosphere filled with excitement and anticipation.

That is empathy! 

We live in a participatory culture.  People do not expect, nor do they tolerate, the role of passive by-stander.  Success in today's world requires us not only to do our job, but also to understand and appreciate the impact that our work has on others.  It is not sufficient to analyze our client's needs, we must understand the context within which they experience that need.

Can schools teach empathy as a skill?  They must.  As the above illustrates, social media tools can help.  More importantly, though, schools must create an environment that values empathy and encourages students to practice it.  Such an environment requires us to design experiences with our students, not lesson for them.  It requires us to focus on the context of learning, not just the content!