Top 5 Ways to Get Smart without Reading

A lot of great literature was never meant to be read at all. Did you read Shakespeare in school? Why? It’s a stage play. Did they make you read Star Wars, the book? Of course not, the movie was better. Most poetry is much better read aloud, most stories for that matter. Even the bible was intended as a compendium rather than a good read.

The Oxford Dictionary says that if you are illiterate you are two things:

1 unable to read or write

2 ignorant in a particular subject or activity

It is no accident that the English language uses the same word to describe these two things. The inability to read or write automatically ensures one’s ignorance of information. Traditionally, anyone without access to books or school had little hope of thriving in our world. That is what we have always been told, because until now that has always been true.

Not only is reading not the only source of information in this world, it is not even one of the best.  There are effective methods of learning that do not require the Dewey Decimal System. They are all around us:

Documentary Films

The Mediatech at the NFB provides an archive of thousands of films.

The variety of topics that have been thoroughly examined through the magic of film is staggering. In many ways docs provide particular narrative advantages that literature cannot. Visual medium can capture moments candidly and accurately making many subjects more accessible. Speaking of accessible, the number of docs available on YouTube alone will keep you busy for a long time.

Podcasts

With podcasts, there really isn’t much use lugging heavy books around.  There are currently thousands of works of literature available for free or cheap that will be read to you by either a professional reader or in some cases the very author of the book. The same goes for podcast on any number of topics from history, to university lectures to interviews.  In the case of spoken-word and storytelling it is the only way to ‘read’ it.

The Ancient Greek Scholars, who we look to as our academic role models, typically had slaves read to them in much the same way. When well read, it allowed for relaxed contemplation while strolling through their Mediterranean paradise. Socrates never wrote anything down, and it is believed that Homer was totally blind. Illiterates!

Audio-books are not just for the blind. They are sometimes the preferred, often the intended means of transmitting the information. Especially if you like the outdoors.

Lectures and Discussion Groups

If you want to take the podcast-lecture one step further, go to the actual lecture. Sometimes you can sit in on a university lectures, but professors don’t usually take kindly (see below). There are still a lot of lectures that are specifically open to the public. Community groups and cultural organizations also provide a wealth of ongoing readings and discussions. They are delighted when people actually show up to them.

Museums

City walking tours in particular require no reading

Museum tour-guides are total grinders. For a small price, sometimes free, they will part with a seemingly endless supply of expertise. There are countless museums in every city all lovingly put together for you to visit. Far more can be learned from the tactile experience of visiting one than simply reading about it in a book.

Talking to People.

Sounds pretty obvious. So many problems that I have come across in my life could have easily been solved by spending 5 minutes with an expert. Everyone is an expert on something. Some people are experts on things that have no relevance to you. Save them for later. Find the people you want to talk to and meet up with them for a chat. Many of us have lost the patience to sit and listen. Perhaps all those years of classroom incarceration put an end to any such desire.

The fact is that people who know a lot about certain things tend to like talking about those things. You have to write an essay on the Plains of Abraham? Find one of those guys from the historical re-enactment club.  They will tell you everything. And then some.

Oh wait! You’re in school? Sorry. If you are in school, your teacher will be delighted to tell you that none of the above sources of information are legitimate. Chances are, your school has enough trouble with you using the internet for research.

There is a very good reason for that. When they tell you that non-published information is unreliable, what they mean is “unfactual”. It is has not been approved by a central academic oligarchy. To use anything outside of this carefully monitored system of knowledge is to be marginal and shiftless.

While academics should certainly defend this standard of knowledge and their own value associated with it, they are not the only ones with knowledge. They are simply the only ones holding it as a commodity. The value of that commodity lies in its scarcity of supply. They supply the written word much the way the government controls money, the gas company provides your heating and TV networks decide what you will watch. In school we are taught to depend on the written word for knowledge and trust nothing else.

We are not encouraged to learn what educators call “Metacognition”. It is the art of learning. It is knowing one’s own best way to learn something. It is about developing ones own system of knowledge  instead of trying to fit into someone else’s. Most importantly, it is about establishing one’s own set of values and living up to it. Teachers need to learn it just as much as their students.

It is all a question of goals. Are you learning just to get qualifications for a job? Then you need literacy. They have you where they want you. But if you just want knowledge for the sake of knowledge, they it is out there for you. Its free, and its cheap too.

So learn. You don’t need to go back to school. You don’t need to do your homework. You need to choose what you want to know and stop wondering if it is something you are supposed to know. You will know it when you see it.

Spanish version Espagnol

Spell Check This!

Why does “one” spell “won” and “through” spell “threw”? If  “knight” spells “night” then why doesn’t “tough” rhyme with “bough”? What is this obsession with inconsistent spelling in English? Next time you ask yourself that question (if you still bother to), think how you are yourself implicated in this whole ridiculous waste of time.

Could you tell me the origins of the word?

Most of us have long given up wondering. We enjoy playfully pointing out the various inconsistencies in English spelling. Those who lament them are often the first to correct the spelling mistakes of others. Teachers place an enormous emphasis on them. Students make themselves crazy avoiding them. There are nationwide spelling bees. Thousands of kids divert attention away from meaningful learning and youthful cognitive development to cram for them. Just to spell words correctly.

This would not be an issue if there was a logical consistency to spelling. In French, and most other languages, there are no spelling bees. All words are spelled by a logical set of rules. Each letter makes a sound, and letter combinations make other sounds. In English even our rules don’t make sense. C is a K, but sometimes an S. T is a T but sometimes a SH. Sometimes it makes no sound at all. The list goes on. So long that we don’t even bother with it.

The Turks got it right. In the 1920s, Ataturk the great unifier of the Anatolian people decided to bring his tired, crippled country into the modern age. In an massive campaign, he nationalized the population, banned the veil, enforced new hat laws, and standardized the language. Then, with everyone still gasping stunned and gobsmacked,  he boldly announced that  everything henceforth would be changed from Arabic script to Latin script, immediately. Phonetically the Arabic script did not suit the Turkish tongue, and Ataturk (who liked all things European) decided the Latin script was more becoming. In order for it to fit the Turkish palette, a strict set of rules had to be established. He wanted to curtail the inefficiencies of the old system (and avoid problems like we have in English). The system that came out of it is so logical and perfect, that we should just go ahead and adopt it too.

Well that’s all right for the Turks, you might say, but what does that have to do with me? Ataturks reforms probably didn’t come easily. Is it worth it, changing an entire language that, franlkly, hasnt really been standardized in the first place? Ataturk probably had to crack a few heads in the process, and besides, who cares? This is just another creative solution to a problem that doesnt really exist, right?

It will not comfort you to know that the countless annoying anomalies in English spelling are no accident. They were actually placed there on purpose. English, having its roots in so many ancient languages, spanning such a broad range of regional dialects, invaders and adoptions over the centuries has had to cope with its fair share of square pegs and round holes. I do not intend to bore you with a history of phonology, detailing the yew-hew mergers and yod droppings. Suffice to say, these pesky spellings were once gilded permanently by the scholarly elite as a legacy to their archaic language origins. For your enjoyment.

That enjoyment must be immense. Still today, in the 21st century, the Stickler Conspiracy, the Templar Knights of Spelling, the Orthographers Cult defend the cause. As we speak, term papers are being flung back at students faces, compositions are being defaced with red ink, volumes of copy are being sent back to the printer, marks are being deducted, machines are making suggestions, cell phones are making predictions, people are rifling through dictionaries, all because some English scholars thought it would be fun.

There have been efforts to change this. As early as the 1870s, in the heat of revolutionary gusto, the newly United States proposed a whopping 3500 English spelling corrections. That was eventually whittled down to a few hundred. When they realized how much work it was going to be to change everything, they decided to just go with a few “u”s being dropped and switch ‘lorry’ with ‘truck’. Besides, America had its own intellectual elite, and they didnt want to be left out of literary circles over a few “gh”s and silent “t”s.

Here’s the problem I have with it. Historically valid or not, these spelling anomalies are culturally based. They are important to the English. Its their language, as they will remind you, and they can spell it any way they see fit. That might be all right for the English, but what does that have to do with me? Most people who speak English aren’t English. And those who are, aren’t even that English anyways. Most British people aren’t even English. I decree henceforth: Anyone who doesn’t identify themselves as English, is not subject to English cultural rites. They are therefore exempt from any archaic spellings. I even go as far as to propose that we call the language we speak by another name. The English may freely exercise their perfectly admirable and legitimate traditions as they need to.  But let the domination of English culture upon others cease, and may we free ourselves.

As mad as that may sound, texters have already started. Many SMS users and online chatters by-pass the spelling suggestion doctrine hardwired into their devices. They have adopted a handier more efficient way of communicating. Academics routinely scoff at this so-called misuse of the language. But ultimately, out of reach of the hobbling tyranny of academics, it thrives. It goes by no other rules than common sense, efficiency and expediency. Through a series of acronyms, the cryptology even extends to body language and idiomatic expressions. In your face, English.

Do not wait for a leader to show you the way. Do not wait for the academic fossils to make it mainstream. Even if you are an adoptive speaker of English, this is your language. Use it as you wish. The point of a language is to communicate and be understood. So do whatever it takes to communicate better. Dropping archaic usages will save you time, free you from the binds of English Imperial domination and improve your life at the same time.

Why does school suck? We teach it to suck.

Why is school such a drag? Why are students so relieved when school is out? How, as educators, did we screw this one up so badly? I mean, what could be more fun than spending time with your friends and being exposed to a wide range of useful information through activities instead of working for a living. If kids werent forced to go to school, they certainly never would.

Another satisfied customer.

Yet, learning is the most natural thing for a child to do, and we are scratching our heads wondering how we are going to get them to do it. How could an organization be so badly managed?

Joel Kline, the Chancellor of the New York City Department of Education recently said:  “If they ran Google the way we run public schools they would shut it down tomorrow”. Google doesnt seem to have any problems attracting participants. They are wildly successful, well managed and have a staff of motivated, creative people. Why are they so successful? One reason is that they are nothing like the education system.

Throughout school, students are told that if they buckle down, do as they’re told and study the material, they will be successful in life. Those who do not comply will get the bad jobs, those who do will get the good jobs. But when they enter the real world they quickly realize that their academic credentials are almost worthless. If they are lucky, they someday realize that real success comes from doing something you enjoy with motivation and creativity. Three things that were never covered in school.

Anyone who has watched the game-show “Are You Smarter than a 5th Grader” can see how little of the content knowledge covered in school actually gets learned in any meaningful way. So what were we learning that whole time? What were we doing squandering our youth in stuffy classrooms, when we could have been enjoying our short and precious youth?

Einstein once said: “Education is what remains after one has forgotten everything he learned in school.” So what is school for? That is for each person to answer for themselves.  At worst it has taught us to be dependent on schools to learn. It has placed an invisible monopoly on learning. Without school there is no meaningful learning. Academia is sacred, anything else is marginal. It has driven this notion so deep that it is difficult for most people to learn without a proper context.

This doctrine is so important, that it must be forced upon its pupils through standardized curriculum. It can only be applied through rigorous behavioural training. Most of all it requires the implementation of a set of values that will sustain it over generations.

Sadly, it teaches us that hard work and discipline are virtues. And we end up believing it without question. Fun is frivolous. Seriousness is serious. Fun and learning dont mix. It cant all be fun and games, out there the world is tough. Bla Bla Bla . Bullshit. We were taught to think that, and we can be taught not to think it.

The good news is that as a result everyone gets a pretty good education. Who could argue with that? People need educations. There is so much stuff to learn. The other result is that over time we forget how to learn by ourselves. We become dependent on schools to give us the knowledge we need. And as adults, when the time comes to seek new knowledge, we invariably turn to schools for help. Or we simply stop learning altogether.

If Einstein was right, then school leaves us with the lesson that learning is strictly dependent on toil through institutionalization. But its not true. If Google were running the show, learning would be fun. Students would be motivated to come to school and eager to learn. Schools would be run efficiently, cost effectively, maybe even profitably.

I have taught ESL to both children and adults. The instructional strategies in both classrooms are the same with one important difference. Adults need to be convinced that they are learning, kids need to be convinced that they are not. The more schooling an individual has had, the more serious the learning has to appear. The more schooling they have had, the harder it is to teach them. That doesnt sound right to me.

If students are not learning anything in class then why not? They would learn if they cared, or if they were motivated. If you are a teacher, ask yourself this: What is keeping students from enjoying their learning experience? Whatever it is, whether it is the materials, the fact that it is happening in a classroom, too much work, not relevant, too many students, not interesting, seats too uncomfortable, too much material to be covered, whatever it is, its wrong. Dont worry about other teachers, just look at what you do.  Whether its the teachers fault, or the school boards fault, or the fault of education itself, whatever. If learning is really the point here, then the thing that doesnt work has to go. That is something that you can control. There is a better way to do it, there is always a better way. Its not enough to say there is nothing to be done.  If this were a business in that “real world” we are supposed to be preparing students for, then we would have to solve this problem. If we dont, then maybe Google should be running it instead.

This is not a Videogame …….. Its a Serious-game

The Student with the Most Money Gets an A+

Like it or not, interactive gaming platforms are creeping into classrooms at every level of academia. But this “new kid in town” has to earn his chops before the elbow-patch and courderoy crowd at the graduate level will give it the green light. They are a tough nut to crack, so the spoils of this enormously promising industry will certainly go to a small and sly group of go-getters. But it will take more than just good salesmanship and solid merit to get in. This is niche marketing at its most niche. I recently saw these salesmen at work, and the story goes like this:

As a money job, I have the pleasure of teaching at the well-known business school of a Montreal University. Among the many perks of having this position is access to various lecture series and training workshops. This week a colleague of mine recommended a presentation of a new business role-play simulator called ERPSIM, which was right up my alley.

At the very least these lunch-time seminars offer a welcome catered alternative to cafeteria food. I made myself comfortable in a small auditorium of  Harris-Tweed academics and pink-collared administrators. The presentation was made by a dashing group of young associated professors, each one explaining their particular role in the inner workings of their project.

Without going into too much detail, it amounts to a simulator course that replicates a business based on established models. Competing teams of students are formed to run these virtual businesses in real-time through market conditions based on actual, current conditions. The variables and data in this game are extensive, detailed and most importantly, relevant. The company that makes the most money wins.

Students love it. It is both as compelling and as geeky as a world-class videogaming tournament. The competion is fierce and the stakes are high. Not only is the outcome of the game their “final exam”, but there is  the added glory of  winning in front of a growing audience of head-hunters and recruiters.

The professor in charge of pedagogy on this project spoke last. After all, he was speaking to a room full of teachers. The toughest sell of all was to convince this room that this was academically viable. He was well-prepared with a power-point of flow charts, principals of educational theory, methods of data analysis, and everything else he would need to demonstrate the educational qualities of this program.

As the presentation wound down, my hand shot up. “What is the fundamental difference between this game and commercial video games like “Railroad Tycoon?” I asked. Every member of the team was very eager to answer this question. The same answer came in every form. This game is relevant to real life. It uses real-life business models, real data, real economic conditions and is an accurate preparation for real-life conditions. “Railroad Tycoon” is just a game.

The room liked this response. I did too. Its very exciting to see what amounts to a video-game being sold to old-school academics as the future of education. It was especially exciting since they were actually buying it… to a certain extent.

Railroad Tycoon is a challenge in resource management and capitalism.

But the team of game designers knew that there was more to this than just selling the academic merits. They are a group of dynamic educational innovators, and they know who they are dealing with. The real concern here was how this program was going to fit into the politics and tradition of intelligencia who control the purse strings. In turn, they respected all the necessary elements of academic court proceedings. A third of the presentation time was dutifly allotted to introducing the credetials of each esteemed participant. Then, instead of an interactive demonstration of the product (which I would have preferred) it was a lengthy lecture with diagrams and statistics. Everyone spoke with a demure tone in keeping with their station. It had to be packaged as a serious product in order to be taken seriously.

But seriously. Its a video game. And a damned good one at that. The difference between Railroad Tycoon and  ERPSIM is the same difference between Microsoft® Flight Simulator X and the NASA Ames Research Center Vertical Motion Simulator. One of them is available to the public, the other is limited to a qualified elite. One of them comes with a operating manual, the other comes with a treatise. One of them is designed for leisure, the other is designed for learning. Both are fun, but only one of them is supposed to be fun.

Most importantly, unlike commercially available video-games, this game is not intended for public consumption. This is an elite game. This is the Glengarry game. Its for Closers. It teaches sacred knowledge that must be jealously restricted to the privileged few who grace the halls of prestigious academic institutions. Nobody knows better than economists the value harnessed through supply and demand. To release this onto the market would be to devalue it. And so, serious games shall for now be kept under lock and key and video-games shall be for the masses.

I hope that eventually this gap will narrow, and schooling will return to being a place where learning is fun. For now we will appease the Mr. Chips generation by sucking all the life out of it for the purpose of academic analysis. But over time these technologies will take their rightful place in a curriculum and learning will hopefully become more natural again. The good news is that so-called “serious games” are making inroads into academia at the highest level. This means better education for this new generation, and best of all: better video games for everone.

Is This Going to be on the Test?

They say, back in the day, life was tough. But, by virtue of more pious standards, life was better for it. Kids today, they have it easy. Unfortunately, for the preachers of these assertions, rarely is this backed up by any satisfactory evidence besides unsolicited eye-witness testimony. Until now.

Recently, I found an old gem that I could not resist. It was a titled: “Kenny Hignite’s 1954 Civics Test on the U.S. Constitution.” It is a scan of an 8^th grade civics test filled out in the laborious handwriting of what seems to be a very attentive student of the 1950s. The questions are straightforward; it is to test the student’s knowledge of the basic U.S. governmental structure. What is interesting about it is the comment posted as a caption:

“What more proof do we need that our children are being deliberately dumbed down (sic) than this standard 1954 civics test on the U.S. Constitution on which Kenny Hignite received a 98 1/2, Excellent, indeed!”

Admittedly, the test is tough. I certainly would not be able to answer most of the questions, nor would many educated Americans. There is an assumption here that because the test is harder, its better, and that harder tests are a mark of a better quality education system. Let’s examine this quiz to see just how good it is.

The first 29 questions ask for the names of cabinet members and their title. Young Kenny had a surprising knowledge of the answers. He mechanically lists them off like a pro. Yet, the depth of his knowledge is unknown since there are no questions about the significance of these offices, nor the roles they serve. The questions ask for declarative knowledge in the absence of comprehension and application.

Questions 30 through 51 ask for the provisions of the first to the twenty-second Amendments to the Constitution. The teacher seems happy with his talent for numeration, spelling and memorization.

The questions then start to get interesting. For example:

57. Two things necessary to any good government are ________________?

There is an insufficient amount of space to respond. Kenny’s answer of

Laws and Officials was good enough for the teacher; clearly another exercise in memorization rather than analysis and evaluation.

62. The president chooses his cabinet in order to _____________________?

Here again the students have been coached on the specific criteria necessary to answer this question correctly. Kenny had dutifully memorized his answer here as well.

The most interesting of all of the questions come at the end:

98. Does a dictator consider the welfare of the people? No     . (Correct)

99. Can a government function without the power to raise money? No    . (Correct)

100. Do wealth and power alone make a nation happy? No    . (Correct)

This is an interesting insight into what might be considered moral education. This moral education comes in the form of memorizing answers to questions. The real moral education comes from the design of the test itself: When it comes to the American Constitution, simply listen and repeat.

Kenny did a good job on this quiz. He did what was expected of him and he was aware of the expectations set by the teacher. It is not possible to know the content of the rest of the course, so we can not assume that this low-level learning exercise was the extent of the curriculum. We know, however, that this particular test was quite difficult, if not challenging.

The comment posted above praises the test for being difficult in comparison to today’s standards. It implies that students today are coddled and aren’t given the tough love of their grandparent’s generation. But, is the goal to make our students sweat, or to teach them how to think?

Memorizing a hundred items and regurgitate them onto a quiz is difficult for anyone. Placed in the context of their relevance in relation to other areas of knowledge, it would be much easier. This “easier” approach would also exercise meaningful comprehension of the elements, giving the student a chance to truly understand what they are learning. The moral lesson would be different as well. It would teach students to embrace the principles being taught instead of simply obeying them.

In such a class, the last three questions of the quiz would be essay questions. The criteria would demand that they speak about what those ideas mean to them. Points would be awarded for their ability to construct and articulate a position, not for repeating the right answer.

So, yes Gramps, life was tougher in your day. School taught you to sit down and shut up. You had to learn the rest on your own. This quiz is a perfect example. It takes something very simple and it makes it difficult.

Our job as teachers is not to put obstacles in front of our students. It is to put difficult challenges in front of them and make them seem easy. If an assessment is in keeping with the instructional goals, then there is no reason why it shouldn’t be easy.

Gone is the Hickory Switch, but Not the Crushing of Spirits

Remember when taking a beating was an important component of moral teachings? Some even forgive their torturers and consider the virtues of such methods. Maybe that would make their lives easier too. But it takes far less than a good thrashing to give a lesson in values. Here’s how:

Richard “Conversation” Sharpe, an early 19th century intellectual, once told an anecdote about his fellow British socialite, politician, author John Horne Tooke as detailed in James Sutherland’s The Oxford Book of Literary Anecdotes. The story goes like this:

When Horne Tooke was about fourteen of fifteen years old, at Eton, in construing a passage in a Latin author, the Master asked him why some ordinary construction, the rule of which was very familiar, obtained in the passage (sic). The pupil replied he did not know, on which the Master, provoked by his ignorance and perverseness, caused him to be flogged, a punishment he received with perfect sang froid and without a murmur. The Master then put the question to the next boy in the class, who readily gave the answer, whatever it was, as laid down in the common rules in the Eton Grammar. The Master said, “Take him down- a blockhead”, on which Horne burst into tears, which the Master observed as something readily unintelligible, exclaimed, “Why, what is the meaning of this?” Horne replied, “I knew the rule as well as he did, but you asked me the Reason, which I did not know”.

Young Tooke was right of course, and can be commended for his stiff upper-lip when it came to taking his licks. The story goes on with the Master realizing his error and graciously granting him an on-the-spot public apology by giving him a dedicated book by Virgil from his own collection. Horne cherished this book his whole life.

Luckily for him, he managed to recover from this instructional gaffe. In part this is due to the Master’s congeniality (aberrant for the epoch), not to mention his costly reparations. Similarly, Tooke had the wherewithal to stand up for himself against adversity. It is the convergence of these two circumstances that makes the story so worthy of note. Normally this situation would be far more damaging.

Tooke, being an attentive pupil, took the Master’s question literally. The question called for exercising low levels of thinking such as remembering and understanding (See Bloom’s Taxonomy). The Master had inadvertently put the question in a way that called for analyzing and creating, a much higher level of thinking. Clearly, this level of thinking was not often applied in this course or our perspicacious Tooke would have certainly been able to answer correctly.

The Master did however have the rare forbearance to repair the situation. Walvoord and Johnson Anderson call this “Seizing the Teachable Moment”, one of their Principals of Managing the Grading Process. In it they state, “…the learning process itself, like any significant change, can evoke strong emotions in learners and teachers alike”. By the way the anecdote is told; Eton had a system where pupils were placed in the front or back of the class based in their academic achievement and behavior. This, in addition to the humiliation and sting of corporal punishment, added to the emotional climate of the educational environment. The Master harnessed Tooke’s undignified emotional public outburst by giving him a lesson in morality that he would draw on for many years to come. According to Walvoord and Johnson Anderson “Such moments of emotional intensity may be the most powerful teaching moments of the semester.” Indeed, by Sharp’s account, a much older Tooke still had the copy of Virgil in his hand when he told him this story. Clearly, the lesson had made a lasting impression on this great man.

Every teacher would like to think that this situation could never happen to them. As much as the Master did the right thing in the end, it was costly. Not just in the value of his copy of Virgil, but in losing face in front of the class. Despite his sound judgment, he was bound by the very strict and violent times that he lived in. We live in a time when our relation to students is much more casual. We have more opportunity for open dialogue and feedback, not to mention the total absence of violent persuasion. That is not to say that our actions cannot be just as damaging. Even without the hickory switch, we still have the ability to cause ruinous harm to a student’s motivation and efficacy. I always have to remember that a single misplaced word or missing compliment can quickly put a student into a quiet despair from which they may never recover.

This worries me especially with my daughter. As she enters an age where she needs to learn rules and listen to instructions, I need to tread carefully. I dislike the idea of discipline, yet I find myself enforcing it. Now when I find myself enforcing a rule, I feel like a bit of me dies in the process. As a teacher, I am expected to have a certain amount of expertise in this matter, yet all of my childhood and adult life I have avoided both giving it and getting it. I dread the damage I may cause in a single moment of harshness or a misdirected comment. At the same time, I hope that my daughter has the tenacity (nay, the cheek) to stand up to me or anyone else if unfairly treated. By the looks of it, it may not be long before I see such poetic justice prevail.

Further reading:

Krathwohl, D.R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theory in Practice, Volume 41, Number 44, pg 212-217

Sutherland, James (Ed.).(1975).The Oxford Book of Literary Anecdotes. (p. 147) Oxford University Press

Walvoord, B.E. & Johnson Anderson, V. (1998). Managing the grading process. In Effective grading: A tool for learning and assessment (pp.9-16) San Francisco: Jossey-Bass

What Do Video Games Do for the Soul?

Games, just like any learning exercises, come with a set of values that ultimately teach a moral lesson. This moral doctrine, explicit or implicit, may even differ from the intended pedagogical lesson. Video Games are no exception. Each one secretly teaches a set of values. Yet these lessons are not necessarily in the content or story-line. They live deep in the design of the game and are taught through the system of challenges and rewards offered to the player.

As the world slips deeper and deeper into a dependence on Information Technology, the future of online learning and digital technology seem inevitable. Computers are no longer restricted to computer technology classes. They have made their way into every learning environment. Within the next ten years, initiatives such as “One Laptop per Child” promise global access to the internet for all children regardless of their infrastructure and level of poverty. If so, demand for computer-based learning concepts that are adaptable and accessible will likely skyrocket. With children representing such a significant segment of the user demographic, let us examine the advantages and drawbacks of video-game technology. Countless renowned scholars embrace the future of video games as learning tools, but there remains a social stigma that inhibits progress on moral grounds. This blog entry intends to examine the highly popular video games of today for their enormous educative potential. In the process, a series of popular beliefs and misconceptions will be discussed and hopefully clarified. But first….

How Games of Morality Work

Nobel Prize winning mathematician, John Nash (1951) developed a series of games that he applied to mathematical analysis of the patterns of human behaviour known as Game Theory. One of his best known challenges is a game aptly named “Fuck Your Buddy”, then changed to the more appropriate “So Long, Sucker” (Although most scholars still lovingly refer to it by its original name). The game pits players against one another and rewards cruelty and betrayal to win.

John Nash, Game Theorist and Mathematician

On a pedagogical level, it is an effective teaching strategy. Negotiation skills and cooperation (or uncooperation) apply mathematical equations to real life. This basic game structure is used in Monopoly, Risk and Diplomacy to name a few. But, what are the moral values that players take away from this game?

Nash calculated what made the game progress. Players would have to make deals. He calculated that in order to win, a player would have to make deals and break them, thus betraying his fellow players. The player most successful at betraying others would win every time. The lesson of the day: always act in your own interest, always mistrust others, and you will always win.

Nash’s Game Theory models have been effectively applied to countless company management systems as well as government bureaucracies and debatably promote a reasonable approach to life. But really, it is evil. It teaches people how to be more evil, and rewards them. Just look who is using it…

Universal Design for Learning (UDL), a game-based teaching method that shares similar pedagogical goals, presents a vastly different set of moral values. UDL was originally developed by designers to meet standards of access for individuals with disabilities and a wide range of special needs. Many existing facilities and devices in our society have been created with an “ableist” design code. Ableism, according to Dr. Gregor Wolbring of the University of Calgary International Center for Bioethics, Culture and Disability, is:

…a network of beliefs, processes and practices that produce a particular kind of self, body and abilities which are projected as perfect and essential, while at the same time labelling deviation (real or perceived) from this essential self, body and abilities as a diminished state.

The goal of UDL is to eliminate barriers to learning that students may encounter . Using the prescribed principals of preparedness, adaptation, accomodation and inovation, teachers create a learning environment that overcomes their ableist origines and promotes a policy of inclusion. In a classroom environment where students have a wide range of physical, mental and cultural specifications, certain games and activities would not be inclusive in their original ableist form.

In a game of floor-hockey, instead of adapting the game to special needs as an afterthought, the activities are custom-made to everyone’s needs. A student with reduced mobility is goal-keeper. Student with visual impairment use a beeping ball. These accomodations facilitate participation, while emphasising the skills that they have, without infringing needlessly on the enjoyment of others.  This system requires a fair bit of instructor preparedness and student innovation.

Floor Hockey

Creating a Moral Environment

Universal design requires instructional materials and activities that allow learning goals to be reached by individuals with a wide variety of abilities to see, hear, speak, move, read, write, understand English, attend, organize, engage, and remember. Such a flexible, yet challenging, curriculum gives teachers the ability to provide access to physical education to each student without having to repeatedly adapt the curriculum in order to meet individual students’ needs.

The students in this environment can have an enriching experience that is reduced as little as possible by their disability, and enhanced as much as possible by the cooperation of the group. Success in the challenge is its own reward.

Like Nash’s game, this game teaches cooperation, adaptation, strategy and encourages students to engage in a competitive environment. The intended moral lesson of this game is quite different, however. Instead of cultivating healthy mistrust and cunning, students take away a sense of community, compassion and value in cooperation. Critics of this system could argue that it promotes mediocrity by discouraging competition and settling for the lowest common denominator. Well, it does that too.

So Where do Video Games Fit in to This?

Let us turn our attention, then, to video games. Today’s games are a far cry from Atari. The 80s and early 90s produced predominately ”reaction-based” games. Success relied heavily on hand-eye coordination, dexterity and perseverence, but little intellectual stimulation. The player had almost no input in the progress of the story. Levels were predetermined and repititious.

Typical "action-based" game from the 1980s

Today’s video games have taken a new direction in sophistication. The graphics are high-resolution and achieve astoundingly detailed 3-D virtual environments. The interactivity of these games allows the user to make an almost infinite number of decisions and the game provides an equally infinite set of fates. Some of these games also provide the opportunity for users to create their own environments as well as their own challenges. The experience is so stimulating that players easily become engrossed in the game.

One of the possible objections to video games and mass media in general is their proclivities towards violent and perverse storylines. As a society, it is difficult for us not to place some ownership on violence and perversity in the media when it comes to violent crimes. Matt McCormick, Professor of Philosophy at CSUS looks closely at this debate and draws a proverbial line in the sand:

If it is true that violent movies, television and video games are risk increasing acts, the defenders of television, movies and games have not lost the debate (at least from a utilitarian perspective). Risk increase is just one factor that goes into the calculation of overall benefit or harm. If the advantages overall still justify that increase in risk, the activities can be defended on utilitarian grounds.

He challenges society’s suspicion of violence in the media while other deeply rooted social traditions such as sports, firearm and vehicle use are justified by their utilitarian value. Ultimately, the absence of solid evidence linking violent media and violence neither makes a strong case for nor against video game use in our society. It can be said that in some instances the delight that designers and gamers seem to share for detailed graphic portrayal of brutality is extreme by any standards. This motivation for increasingly accurate bloodshed often verges on fetishism. In some rare cases video games have even had a noticeable role in the events leading up to some well-documented firearm rampages. Yet, if these games were intended as a means to rouse violent behaviour in its users, they have been categorically unsuccessful. As shocking as these incidents are, they are rare.

Its How you Play the Game

From a utilitarian point of view, as long as the benefits outweigh the harm, there is no reason why video games aren’t good to go. Since video games provide so much pleasure to so many people, maintain a multi-billion dollar industry and contribute so much to the advancement of Information technology, they make a good case for themselves. Yet there are other factors to take into consideration besides solid evidence linking violence to violent video game use. McCormick gives the example of John Stuart Mill’s distinction between higher and lower capacities for pleasure and pain. Exposure to cruelty and suffering while playing a particularly violent video game could affect the user mentally. Even if this does not lead to any measurable harm, it still has an undesirable effect. As McCormick puts it:

We can anticipate, therefore, that the utilitarian might take up Mill’s distinction and argue that video games, because of the wanton destruction, lawlessness, and violence appeal to our lesser, base impulses, could cause a persons capacities for higher pleasures and goods to atrophy.

McCormick is quick to point out however that this is a shaky position at best; certainly not the basis for any kind of policy. Not to mention, if our society was to embrace a “blanket condemnation of the so-called lesser pleasures, video games are just one of a long list of activities that we would be forced to avoid”. McCormick claims that it is all in the way we play the game:

When we play video games with other people, we can not do any real physical harm to them, despite the heavy plasma blaster firepower we might bring down on their character. But we can be bad sports against them.

Ultimately what is called for here is moderation. Teaching good sportsmanship is the job of teachers and parents. It is bad sportsmanship that leads to violent behaviour in video game users. Teachers and parents also have the responsibility of monitoring media content in their homes and classrooms. But, there is no accounting for taste. When it comes to applying them as educational tools, certain standards of decency still need to be met. A gratuitous portrayal of violence is simply inappropriate material for some environments. A parent or teacher need not explain why they find content objectionable when it is at their discretion.

What is the Game Really Teaching?

While critics and defenders of video games debate how morally objectionable simulated violence may be, a deeper question needs to be addressed: What is the underlying moral lesson of the game? We have seen how games can have different pedagogical lessons than moral lessons. But be careful! In games where the theme is overtly offensive and violent, the fundamental goals and values being promoted in the game may actually be considered educationally viable.

Plato and Aristotle’s protective and well-directed education would immediately find offence with the perverse content of many contemporary video games. In their world, the themes of such devices intended specifically for young consumers would best be filtered by a legislator. They would not necessarily object to the technology itself, but rather to the use of technology for such brutish pursuits. “What sort of man is being made?” As Professor E.B. Castle puts it, in his comparison of ancient and modern educational practices:

It is the use of a gadget that determines its goodness and badness; and its value for good depends on the wisdom that gives it proper employment. If the formative power of environment, then, is to act beneficially we must learn to control the neutral machine with our spiritual values.

The Ancients as they are famously depicted

Indeed, the classical philosophers, too, had little faith in the youth’s sense of judgement. They worried about exposing the youth to evil as well as mob hysteria. Plato  tells us even Socrates faced the uncertainty:

In such a scene, what do you suppose would be a young man’s state of mind? What sort of private instruction would give him the strength to hold out against such a torrent, or will save him from being swept down the stream, until he accepts all their notions of right and wrong, does as they do, and comes to be such a man as they are.

It would not be fair to put words in the mouth of the Ancients, for even Castle was speaking from a modern perspective in reference to pre-computer mass media. They cannot address the interactive nature of video games. For them content was received in a passive form. Today’s video games rely heavily on the interaction of the player.

As we know from Dewey, far more is learned from what the player experiences than what the player simply witnesses. The video games of today have a built-in experiential continuity. Through practice and repetition, they develop habits in the player that lead to the reward of advancement in the storyline. While primitive video games reward the refinement of a player’s habits with point accumulation, more sophisticated games reward the same refinement through progress and the increasing difficulty level of challenges. Dewey tells us that this is where growth occurs:

The basic characteristic of habit is that every experience enacted and undergone modifies the one who acts and undergoes, while the modification affects, whether we wish it or not, the quality of subsequent experiences. For it is a somewhat different person who enters into them.

Video Games are Not Television

Video game users are not just deliberately being bombarded with violence, they are working hard at overcoming a challenge. The story line has inferior pedagogical value compared to the overall value of the player’s experience. To find the real moral lesson of the game we have to dig deeper than the graphic backdrop.  As the player progresses through the stages of the game, the rewards represent the values of the game. In the case of most video games, rewards are given for abilities such as coordination, intuition, problem solving skills and perseverance to name a few. These challenges also provide all of the positive mental training of sports like reflexes, teamwork, and dexterity without the negative aspects of physical injury and aggression. Compared to the passive experience of traditional classroom activities, video games can create a highly stimulating learning environment. Both Dewey and the Ancients would agree that the morality of the game is indicated by how the player changes during the experience.

Early games were challenging, but always at a low cognitive level.

Graphically violent content is not the only objectionable aspect of video games. Some parents and teachers might insist that playing video games in general, whether they have inappropriate content or not, is an unconstructive waste of time. Parents lament the hours their children spend in digital pursuit, putting off their homework duties and even foregoing real pleasures in favour of virtual ones. A critic of the growing influence of video games could argue that even if the games are not harmful, children dedicate too many hours of the day to them. Are parents doing the right thing by taking away the games and making their kids do something more constructive?

These are Not the Games Your Papa Played

David Deutsch, Oxford University Professor and member of a libertarian education movement called Taking Chidren Seriously, sees some inconsistency in this attitude. He suspects that parents object to video game playing not because it’s a bad idea, but rather because it isn’t their idea:

If your children were playing chess for several hours a day, you would boast about what geniuses they are. There is no intrinsic difference between chess and a video game, or indeed, even between things like playing the piano and playing video games, except that playing the piano has this enormous initial cost. They are similar kinds of activity. One of them is culturally sanctioned and the other is still culturally stigmatised.

He claims that since video game play is not a state-sanctioned activity, it is unfairly devalued by society. Parents are frustrated by video games trumping the activities more suitable to their own set of values. Yet, what seem like more appropriate activities may actually be less fruitful in comparison. Playing sports, for example, has physical advantages, but as we have seen before it presents countless opportunities for injury and aggressive conduct. Any kind of homework or study that requires too much coercing and sitzfleisch risks becoming punitive rather than productive. Deutsch believes that children are naturally drawn to intellectually stimulating experiences and that they “play video games because they instinctively recognise their educational value”. If children spend too much time on video games, it is because their parents do not provide a sufficiently stimulating alternative. E. B. Castle would agree that we should trust our children to explore at their leisure, but that we as parents and teachers have the responsibility to provide responsible choices:

It matters little whether a boy or girl can say why they like a good thing as long as they feel they like it. Aristotle, we remember, says that it is the point of desire that the good life begins. We should aim at a situation where post-school attitudes are informed by in-school emotional experience.

Another misconception possibly held by critics is that video games are as torpid a pursuit as watching television. The proverbial “boob-tube” that has notoriously robbed so many people of their leisure time bears a striking similarity to the video game. To the untrained eye, there may be little difference between the passive experience of television and the spellbinding charm of video games. Lawrence Lessing, Stanford Law Professor and expert on electronic media describes the fundamental difference as a generation gap borne of technology. Traditional media such as television, films and even literature are categorized as “Read-Only” (R/O) media in that they are produced and broadcast by a creative media elite that requires little of the consumer but their attention. New media such as internet blogging, YouTube and the new generation of sophisticated multi-player video games are part of the “Read/Write” (R/W) media in that they are interactive and participatory. In a November, 2007 lecture called “How Creativity is Being Strangled by the Law”, he explains how these new technologies are not to be misunderstood.

These tools of creativity have become tools of speech.  It is a literacy (sic) for this generation. This is how our kids speak. It is how our kids think. It is what your kids are. They increasingly understand digital technology and its relationship to themselves.

There is far more than just passive participation in today’s video games. Kids live in a world that has only known this technology, whereas their “elders” have coped in a world without it. The parent/teacher generation certainly has its doubts as to the actual merits of this technology and wonders if their kids are spending too much time with their new imaginary friend. The fact of the matter is that kids do not share the anxieties of their parents. In their world there is a great deal of educational value in video games. In fact, the educational potential of video gaming has not yet fully been exploited. When video game design is in the hands of teachers rather than just entertainers, content will likely move away from flashy violent graphics and into more appropriate content. The nature of the technology will allow teachers to collaborate with each other, their students and the world around them to create curriculum that is more in keeping with the “Paradigm for Liberal Education” described by J. R. Martin:

One that does not ignore the forms of knowledge, but reveals their proper place in the scheme of things as but one part of a persons education; one that integrates thought and action, reason and emotion, education and life; one that does not divorce persons from their social and natural contexts; one that embraces individual autonomy as but one of many values.

If only teachers could muster the enthusiasm kids have for video games in their classes. If only teachers had access to technology that children longed to use in their spare time, in endless pursuit of educational opportunities. If only students had homework that required them to spend hours playing stimulating and challenging video games.

For more on latest developments in video game education, check out this link from http://www.educationarcade.org/

Further Reading:

References

Castle, E. B. (1961) Ancient education and  today. Harmondsworth, Middlesex: Penguin Books

Dewey, J. (1997) Experience and education. New York, New York: Touchstone. (Original work published in 1938)

Fitz-Claridge, S. (2003) “Video games, A unique educational environment”, In Taking Children Seriously, Retrieved May 14, 2008 from http://www.takingchildrenseriously.com

Hutchison, D. (2007) “Video games and the pedagogy of place”, The Social Studies, Vol. 98, (Iss. 1) pg. 35-41, Retrieved May 12, 2008 from http://proquest.umi.com

Lessing, L. (2007) “How creativity is being strangled by the law”, In Ted, Ideas Worth Spreading, (Video Lecture Series), Retrieved May 15, 2008, from http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/187

Lieberman, L. J. Lytle, R. K. Clarcq, J. A. (2008) “Getting it right from the start: Employing the Universal Design for Learning Approach to your curriculum”, Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, Vol. 79,(Iss. 2), pg. 32

Retrieved May 12, 2008 from http://proquest.umi.com

Martin, J. R. (1981) “Needed; A new paradigm for liberal education”, (pp. 37-59). In J. F. Soltis (Ed.), Philosophy and Education: Eightieth Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

McCormick, M. (2001)”Is it wrong to play violent video games? Ethics and Information Technology.  Volume 3, No. 4, pg. 277- 287, Retrieved May 16, 2008 from http://proquest.umi.com

Nash, J. (1951) “Non-cooperative games”, The Annals of Mathematics, Vol 54, No. 2, pp. 286-295, Retrieved from JSTOR on May 12, 2008

Plato (1966) Republic, (F. M.Cornford, Trans.). New York: Oxford University Press. (Original work published circa 360 B.C.)

Wolbring, G. (2006). “Ableism and NBICS”, In The Choice is Yours, Retrieved on May 14, 2008, from http://www.innovationwatch.com/choiceisyours/choiceisyours.2006.08.15.htm

Who Cares about English Anyways? How ESL training is far too focused on language.

 

In a post-industrial world, why are we leaving the mind in the hands of pre-industrial craftsmen?

I hear, and I forget. I see, and I remember. I do, and I understand.
– Chinese Proverb

This proverb was drawn from one of many websites dedicated to listing proverbs. Presumably they are intended to inspire those who enjoy inspiring others with quotes. They are especially handy for pasting in status updates and blog entries such as this, or worse they end up on classroom walls as captions for stock inspirational propaganda.

While scrolling through the list, I fell upon this one purely for superficial reasons. It bore obvious alliteration, elegant symmetry and, by virtue of being a well-known proverb, the promise to hold some truth.

But for me there is something missing from the equation. After all, there are plenty of things that I hear that I remember, other things I see and dont even notice, and far too often I am made to do things that I dont understand. For all the hearing, seeing and doing, there has got to be more to it than that. Personally, I need to care about something in order to learn anything about it.

This brings me to my question. How do you teach something if students dont really care about it? I’m not  talking about the compulsory courses that students have to take to graduate, that is another problem completely. Im talking about knowledge that students genuinely want, that is trapped inside ancient traditions of stoicism and dutiful toil: no nonsense, no pain no gain, ca fait du mal quand ca fait du bien teaching. We are not machines, as the Chinese proverb suggests. I personally dont take well to any sort of painful learning. If it hurts to learn, I only seem to remember the pain.

My particular brand of teaching has become one of the biggest boom industries in the world. There are an estimated 2 billion English as a second language learners worldwide. They live on every country in the world, come from every walk of life and are of all ages. Teaching them is a tall order. If it is to be done well, it takes a long time and involves trained teachers willing to travel to faraway lands. There are quite a few of these grass-roots missionaries out there as we speak; self-motivated ex-pat travelers in search of adventure. No matter where they go in the world, their only trouble is managing the overwhelming demand for their services.

Two billion is a big number. Far too big a job to be done “by hand”, and yet that is exactly how we are doing it. When Henry Ford was faced with an overwhelming demand for his cars, it was not long before a mechanized process was established. Is there something different about ESL learning? There is almost no difference between today’s techniques and those used by Ancient Greek pedagogues. At this rate, only the elite will have access to proper training while an enormous opportunity goes untapped.

A lot of educators will not like where this topic is headed. To many, the notion of mechanizing a system of learning to accommodate a problem of supply and demand is offensive and dangerous. Besides, it is simply impossible to replicate a teaching environment digitally or otherwise. We know from Vygotsky that knowledge is passed on through culture and relationships with others. Language, so deeply rooted in others, must certainly be taught in person.

If there were an English learning factory, the aforementioned Chinese proverb would certainly be a on banner above the line. A horrifying scenario would ensue below as thousands of students would be “taught” English by some Huxley\Orwellian assembly process. Instead, we attempt to achieve the same results as pre-industrial craftsmen in classrooms with an assortment of improvised materials.The Ancients used these same techniques. Teachers were just slaves and free agents offering their services to the highest bidder. Industrialization has changed this world everywhere but here.

So why do so many people want to learn English? That’s easy, it is the language of everything. So much of our global culture is made of English. America is Rome and English is the Lingua Franca, right? Not exactly. Most of the world already has its own language and culture and its not English. They are not necessarily learning English to be able to read Shakespeare nor to watch Star Wars in its original version.  English has become the language of problem solving.  If a problem gets big enough, eventually it will need to be resolved in English.

I doubt that most ESL students (or teachers) have any particular love for English. I certainly have none. My parent’s first language was Dutch. We speak English purely for pragmatic reasons. What so many of these ESL students are really after is problem-resolution training. English is simply the key to problem solving. The English used does not even need to be very good, it just needs to be operational. Strangely, ESL training today wastes too much time on language. In order to satisfy the demands for English training, teachers need to focus on the real learning objective: Not language skills,  but communication skills.

Once this learning objective is clarified, English ceases to be Vigotsky’s sacred embodiment of culture and instead becomes a handy interface for global communication. With this important distinction out of the way, we can also change our approach to teaching it. Language as a cultural device is taught through human understanding and knowledge of a complex social organism. Language as a problem-solving interface has different needs. It uses the cognitive functions that are developed through game-play and strategy.

The computer and its yet untapped potential are an excellent learning environment for developing such skills. Most notably, by adapting these learning objectives to social gaming, more of the global market can be reached. With computers so globally widespread, not only will the burden be taken off of our missionary teachers, but the learning environment and working environment will be the same. Finally, ESL students will be able to learn something they actually care about without the yolk of stioc traditions and academic drudgery.

Not to devalue the hard work of our ex-pat field teachers spreading the light of Rome over its client states. Their work is as important as ever. No machine could ever replace the human touch. It is, however, high time we let the machine do some of the work.

Introducing the E-Quilting Bee

International section, sports and comics pages, but no local news.

Upper Canada Village Heritage Museum in Ontario has a 19th century  iron-framed manual printing press. The newspaper that it once printed had brought word from all corners of the British Empire, but almost no coverage of news in their own colony. Local news, the historian explains, spread so quickly by word of mouth that there was no point in printing it.

Lets jump ahead 2 centuries . In Africa a news-collecting initiative is created called Ushahidi , “a GoogleMap mashup that allowed Kenyans to report and track violence via cell phone texts following the 2008 elections, and has evolved to continue saving lives in other countries.”

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/erik_hersman_on_reporting_crisis_via_texting.html

The system relies on cell phone owners to contribute news alerts to a central website by sms or twitter. The information is then logged in a thread where users can contribute new info, confirm (or deny) existing info, update existing info or get informed. The program has had such success that the main concern of site managers is developing a system to process the overwhelming quanitiy of incoming data.

The unreliable mass-media news agencies in Africa are unable to provide meaningful coverage of local events, so this high-tech solution steps in to save the day. High-tech maybe, but not a new idea. This system of user-generated content is merely a sped-up version of the news system that existed until the 19th century.

In pre-modern society, quilting bees, churches and markets were where you got the 6 o’clock news. Each news item came with a thread where contributors were free to post their comments. News had a self-fufilling accuracy as it took a life of its own while being paired down to its essence. Mass-media never really enjoyed this viral vitality of information.

For 200 years our world’s information was harvested, edited, polished and sold as the truth by an elite institution simply called “Media”. Then suddenly, inexplicably, we returned to the timeless method of people sharing information on a grass-roots level. Somehow much of Africa managed to avoid this unpleasant period.

Are we back to a more reliable method of communication? Is the nightmare of mass-media something we will tell our grandchildren about over a bowl of soylent green?

Educational Technology

The college classroom of the past... and the future?

“The greater a man`s desire to persuade his audience, the more he will train himself in true culture, aestetic and moral, and in gaining the estime of his fellow citizens.” Isocrates from the Antidosis (4 th century BC)

This was written in a time before technology, before philosophy became the frivolous passtime of elitists, when education was a lifestyle. Learning came from books as much as it came from other people, whether they were learned or not.

In his lecture, Wesch described learning through social networks as having “the same relationship with knowledge that we have with people”. The Ancients of Isocrates time knew this about knowledge, but by the time I went to school the relationship became one with books, institutions and bureacracy.

This new technology is bringing us back to a time when education was an ongoing discussion like Socrates had with Plato amongst freinds in the shade of an olive tree . The difference is that we are in the comfort of our homes, with access to enormous amounts of information, and the discussion is not limited by gender and class.

Are we going back to a more traditional way of learning? And if so, is this a good thing? If not, where are we going instead?