Archives For December 2012

Gamified? Mooc! Blended?? Flipped!!!

Ed Speak by Branzburg

(click to see larger image: The Innovative Educator)

Thanks to The Innovative Educator Lisa Nielsen ( follow her on Twitter @InnovativeEdu)  for sharing this graphic by Jeff Branzburg (follow him on Twitter @branzburg, Blogging at

These are the big words that we are tweeting about and considering on our 2012/2013 lists of reflection and forward gazing. Forward gazing, navel gazing, personal devices gazing: how ever and where ever you are looking, you can’t avoid thinking about gaming and learning.

Thanks to @edkidsplay of Educational Kids Play for asking for my thoughts along several other tweeps (@ZapplePi @Robitaille2011 @schmidtjake @barb_seaton @davidfifeVP @chriswejr @datruss @marshatkelly @Kate_TL @TCDSB_21C_AICT)

Mr. Pai Gaming in the Classroom You Tube Video

Here Mr. Pai uses several handheld devices, computers and laptops to engage his students in gaming activities to work on multiplication, math facts, converting fractions and some reading activities (not shown).  I think this is a great way to practise basic math facts, and possibly for some decoding and spelling.  This is especially valuable if the students are practising at their own level in small groups and Mr. Pai is able to conduct small group instruction and assessments.  However,  where is the making?

Mr. Pai is doing a super job of engaging kids with tools they love and are familiar with to achieve success in the classroom. I applaud his sincere and honest efforts to augment education into something engaging and focused on outcomes.  As far as I can tell, however, gaming in this sense falls down on the students’ ability to create content.  We must be making stuff.

Hats off to companies for making spelling and multiplication games. This no doubt eases the conscience of the parent buyer (you know, you can learn on it too). Using devices that motivate children and using devices students are familiar with as levers for learning is noble.  But I want to talk about big “L” learning. Yeah, Learning.  Learning where you make stuff. Learning for the 21st century where you critically consume, converse and hack your projects with innovation and creativity.  Let’s use these tools for allowing us to help kids make, create and innovate.  Let these kids know that they do not simply need to be consumers.  No, kids can up-down-shift-a-a-a (that’s my talk for managing a controller) to working these devices into creation mode.

Let’s have a BigThink (plug for my new favourite consortium of ideas Big Think).  See The New Digital Literacy  by Jonathan Fowler and Elizabeth Rodd calling on an urgency for programmers to be thoughtful about the web that is being created.  We are the consumers of the web, and we as teachers filter for our students.  Filter wisely dear colleagues, filter wisely.  We must ensure a healthy diet of consuming (including gaming) and making.  Balancing the inputs with the outputs is essential. Though I would argue that we should be heavier on the outputs.

Into gaming?  Why not programming?  Let’s talk about Scratch. I want to see that in the classroom. Anyone interested?


I wish to reflect on the tragic events that occurred yesterday to in Newtown, Connecticut. I wish to reflect on my process of coming to know about the shootings and terrible events. I am also wondering about truth in journalism and authority online.

I heard the news first through my friends on Facebook and my tweeps on Twitter. I scanned cryptic messages about the horrible events as well as parents reflecting on the unimaginable sadness of never picking their kid up from school again. The emotional dots were there within the fog of 140 characters, status updates and links. The tid bits of information about the events were in a vacuum of facts, authority and context. I followed the links and made the web searches to join the dots in a fast-fact-finding mission to understand. I triangulated, Howard Rheinbold would be proud. Or maybe I didn’t, I just moved forward in a messy way answering the ecology of temptation and clicked my way until my last click. I ended at the Globe and Mail site. “Authority is the last page in the linked chain you visit – the page whose links you choose not to click on” says David Weinberger in his book Too Big to Know. So, I grant authority to the Globe and Mail, since once I get there, I was satisfied that I had information that was accurate, balanced and fair. I started with my friends and emotions and the fast thinking. I ended with giving the badge of authority by giving my attention.

Today, the morning after of the sadness, I found myself reading George Coursos’ blog post, I feel pushed further to consider the need for accuracy. I feel a need to consider accuracy, authority and the facts. After all, “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.” (Attributed)

George Couros laments that our bastions of information such as reputable news sites must be accurate above all. I agree, so would the Society of Professional Journalists in their Code of Ethics. I also think the issue of accuracy on the Net plays in to the much larger issue about knowledge and information. Nicholas Carr, author of The Shallows certainly speaks to the risk of the Net and information online. George Couros brings to light the potential for harm when misinformation about children’s and people’s lives is posted hastily. This isn’t just an affront on facts and correct information: getting it wrong yesterday is damaging to individual and collectives souls. It’s a first person trauma and/or vicarious trauma that is hard to undo. What happened yesterday highlights the interwingularity of the internet, but at an emotional level, we realize that this mix of information and social media can hurt, and hurt badly.

We must be so careful to whom we grant our attention. “No one can be informed without her consent. Information requires for its transmittal the user’s grant of attention.” But what was highlighted for me through George Coursos’ post is that even when your attention is aimed at reputable sources, you can still get burned with misinformation.

If we know that facts can be tenuous and accuracy among professionals will vary how to we protect our hearts and our minds? I think in the absence of trustworthy sources, where every source must be questioned, and authority is not obvious and dubious, it is the reader that must position herself and create the context as well as do the fact checking. Yes, it is terribly sad that the facts were not accurate. But, are we looking at new news with old expectations? Can we expect fast thinking and reporting to be true? Howard Reingold would have suggested triangulation. Finding the facts on multiple sites and cross checking. Crap detection includes, according to Reingold in Net Smart (p. 79) checking on the author, the author’s sources, using or to check the traffic of the site, comments and general as a “credibility meter.” Where did our clicks stop when reading on the events of yesterday? Where you stop is where you attribute authority, be it deserved or not.
But there might not have been enough time for this information to be available. It was happening fast. Which raises another issue. Even if the facts were not accurate. Even with a storm of misinformation, was it beneficial to know quickly what had happened? The early reports were not correct, but were those reports useful in some way? Misinformation may existed, but as an early warning of what went down, maybe it’s better to have a bit of what is going on and then be responsible for putting it together correctly with triangulation and awareness that authority isn’t in someone’s credentials, title, training or where they are posting. Authority is given from the consumer and reader to the tweet, author, or website.

I have recently begun to follow George Couros’ blog and read his tweets regularly. I believe he has excellent ability to hone his attention, to turn on his crap detectors, and to give authority to worthy sources. I agree that accuracy ought to be a primary concern for journalists, and this point would be hard to argue from any point of view. However, I do wonder about the responsibility of the reader/consumer in these cases. I wonder about our responsibility to award authority carefully. I wonder about what we can learn from this in order to hone our understanding of what we must be teaching our students about consuming information, especially with emotionally charged topics – where our humanity and hearts are at risk of injury.

How do I teach my students about the new version of authority? How do I teach students about facts from ‘reliable’ sources? How do I teach triangulation and crap detection? Particularly when the emotions run high and in intense situations where most humans are notoriously brain stem thinkers?

Information is changing. Authority is changing. Facts aren’t the facts. What does the curriculum look like now? What is our relationship with information and the network of information? What is true, who are the experts, whom do we trust?

Most importantly, I am so sorry for the families and the community of Newtown, Connecticut. My heart aches for the children and the families most.

Continue Reading...