Education for Tomorrow

At work today a few of us were talking about what life would be like when the robots took over.  While this sounds pretty sci-fiey this is actually a reality.  Specifically, what will we all do when pretty much all jobs are taken over by automation. The theory is that when automation takes over almost all jobs capitalism will need a major revamping or it will be dead. While this proved good conversational fodder for a while, eventually we moved to what will the curriculum be if students don't actually have to go to work when they grow up.  This led to a talk about how our curriculum is largely dictated by what the business world wants and has been so since the dawn of curriculum. 

In our reading, we looked at how video games are changing the landscape in a number of ways.  First off, narratives are being written for games that are remarkably sophisticated and engaging and are becoming more literary all the time.  If it has not happened already, eventually a great literary writer will sit down and write the great Canadian Video Game.  There is a good argument that a narrative created in a video game could be more impactful due to the interactivity of the medium. 

With all of these changes happening, what should we be teaching our students? In the past, we have been teaching them the "core curriculum" with a few other things as well but what was determining the "core curriculum"?  Actually, maybe the real question should be what should school look like?  do students simply study anything they want?  Who would they study with?  Anyone they wanted on the web?  Teachers? 

In our discussion at work (over a cafeteria pulled pork sandwich) I posited that one system could be people would study what they want with who they wanted.  Teachers would work online in their specific discipline and people would choose to study or not to study with them.  In this model there would be no core curriculum as people would only study what the wanted.  The thinking was that Society might actually benefit as people would go deep into the area of expertise they are interested in and this could result in exciting findings.  However, on an individual level, we would be losing out on the discovery of connections between disciplines and the general knowledge of the world.  Essentially, Society smarter; individual dumber. 

All this doesn't answer the question, "What does the curriculum look like for the future?"  A problem is that I think that a good chunk of us are basing our decisions on what we should teach on the same question that we have been using since the Industrial Revolution, " What will they need to get ahead in the working world."  I think we need to stop this thinking.  I think we need to begin to design the required curriculum around what students need to become good persons.  The obvious problem is that we have different ideas on what that means.  Fortunately, I have an answer to that.  I know.  Listen to me.  I will tell you what that means and we should all teach my curriculum and it involves how to make the best nachos.

Living Together Online

This week we talked about avatar aesthetics and self-representation.  I actually enjoyed the reading as it raised a couple of questions for me.  In my media class we examine this issue through viewing and discussing Douglas Rushkoff's work in Digital Nation.  In it he mentions that people spend a lot of time on their avatars in the business world because it may actually be to their advantage in a business negotiation.  The idea of choosing appropriate business attire for your avatar to attend a business meeting in Second Life while physically staying in your pajamas is a little weird.  Not only that, but the advantage that your avatar gives you in Second Life can apparently extend into real life if you were to meet in a "real world" business negotiation.   The reading also caused me to think about the fact that their research seemed to say that even though we could create game avatars that can be anything, most often we simply create a version of ourselves but we improve it slightly in whatever manner we feel we are deficient.  The implications of this are interesting from a sociological identity standpoint. 

Another thing that came up was the shocking behaviour of the misogynistic cretins who plague the gamer community.  Frankly, it sickened me.  While this could have something to do with the November Blues that seem to be plaguing teachers and students right now when the stress of the classroom and the crazy antics of students who seem to suddenly have decided to rebel against pretty much everything boils over into stupid, destructive behaviour, hearing about this actually caused me to wonder what the world is coming to. Thinking something like this makes me feel old.  I don't understand the depth of hate that these people must be immersed in.  What are we to do about it?

I don't know if there is a short game to be done.  I don't know enough about tracking posts and so on but if possible we should be prosecuting the people responsible under severe legislation.  (As most of it is probably from the US, and it is pretty much terrorism, can't they do something about it?)   The Long Game is to continue teaching from a standpoint of tolerance; of listening to other's views with openness; of working to make the world better instead of adding to the hate that plagues our reality.  This needs to happen in the schools.  Unfortunately, I am pretty sure that character is not part of the standardized test.  I am not sure that character is part of what the largely industrialized model of education that we are a part of  wants.

This needs to be something that we work for.  This needs to be something that is part of our classrooms.  This needs to be taught and fostered at every stage of education to ensure that we have adults who care.

Hey! I Invented a new word! Plagiarism!

This week we talked a lot about remix culture and copyright.  I really found the video series interesting.  I had heard about this sort of thing but was not aware of the extent of remix culture and the video itself was extremely well done. 

It is difficult to find what I think on this topic.  On the one hand, I think that copyright laws can definitely hamper creativity especially when presented with the extent of it in the videos.  I thought it was neat to see what artists and filmmakers were able to create when inspired by what they had seen.  On the other hand, I do think that an artist or a company deserves the right to make money off of what they have created.  If I had an ounce of artistic talent and was able to create something that people might actually purchase, I would like the chance to make a little money off my work.  With this in mind, I can't really blame people who pursue copyright infringers.  Obviously this has gone too far as well as can be seen by the copyright trolls or the ridiculousness of the smartphone lawsuits.  ("we invented slide and unlock" Seriously!) 

I think we can agree that the system is broken but what is the solution?  I am unconvinced that some sort of "everyone creates for the good of the world thing" would work.  Artists, writers, inventors and other creators can't work for free and I think we can agree that voluntary support donations are not going to work either.   Somehow, they need to be able to monetize their work without locking up all the ideas from the rest of us until they are useless as inspiration.  I was intrigued by Joseph Gordon-Levitt's movement from last week but this model does not allow for varying degrees of talent as far as I know.  Would an unknown artist who provides some images deserve the same amount as Steven Spielberg who lends his name and film making talent to the project?

Perhaps what we really need is intelligent jurisprudence.  When a lawsuit is brought in front of a judge, reasonable limits on copyright need to be set which consider the fact that future discoveries will need inspiration from the item under review.  Similarly, when a copyright challenge is brought into a courtroom, reasonable thought needs to win out.  An artist can't lock in a three beat bass line forever and thought must be given to the fact that future songwriters will need to become inspired from past music. 

Also, perhaps permissions and credit should be given a little more readily.  If someone wants to sample your track, the right thing would be to allow it. (especially as it could probably be suggested that you yourself have sampled in the past).  Similarly, artists will need to be a little more open to crediting their inspirations and sampling sources which perhaps may lead to actual profit sharing. A problem here, of course, is that at its essence, capitalism is largely based on greed which does not work well with sharing. 

Perhaps what we need to do is be more creative.  More creative with profit sharing, more creative in monetizing work, more creative in creating and more creative in ways to live cooperatively together.  Perhaps we simply need to remember what the immortal Bill and Ted taught us "Be Excellent to each other!"

DIY Education

This week we learned about the various ways that maker culture and activism can be used in the classroom to inspire learning.  I have to say that I love the idea of tinker education where students work to solve a problem through tinkering.  This has to be some of the most effective learning.  Students would easily see how their learning is relative to life.  In activist learning, student can work to develop projects or ideas to make the world better.  These are exciting opportunities for our students.  If our children are our future, this is probably a good way to educate them.  

Except,

When I hear about the opportunities these kids have to tinker and figure out things and work collaboratively, I am excited but I notice that they are always working to create a product.  They are making a “something”.  In all the excitement of “making” I do wonder where the time is given for these kids to contemplate, to take quiet time to think about the effects of what they are doing.  I worry a little that in the rush to create a product that accomplishes a task, there is less focus placed on thinking and determining an opinion in the rush to make something.  While I am sure that educators would say that those things are important, with all the emphasis placed on making and creating, and the excitement that those things bring, I worry that there will be less emphasis placed on things that are more contemplative.  Will time still be given to things like poetry without a 3d printing component?  Will there still be depth given to assignments or will it remain as a project that is totally cool and hits a number of curricular targets in the tech and science areas but does not allow for a contemplative component that requires more time without sexy arduino programming things.  

I think it is important for a school to not forget the important things that contemplative thinking can bring to a community and to emphasize these things as well.