Category Archives: Education

Why education will always be a human-intensive activity

Posted on by
Reply

There’s a growing consensus out there that not only does education needs to be disrupted, but that the logical conclusion of such change is to digitize learning. While I agree that schools need a major overhaul, the diagnosis that education ought to be automated is completely absurd.

Two articles speak to this ideology. The first was published on TechCrunch and claimed that teachers would be replaced by technology – essentially, software can do as effective a job as a human. The second was published on the Huffington Post, stating that higher education was necessarily being disrupted by new self-service online instructional platforms that would break down the cost barriers to university.

Both articles are based on an ideology that defines learning as the accumulation of knowledge – I would contest such a notion. To be truly educated means one must be able to think critically, to synthesize different facets of knowledge, to effectively express one’s self to others, and to learn how to learn. Education of this depth can never be adequately facilitated by an online platform powered by multiple-choice exams.

There’s no doubt that the way schools currently operate needs disruption. The traditional model features a teacher transmitting “knowledge” into the empty brains of students. This is the way most schooling occurs, from grade school to grad school. This model lends itself greatly to replication online. Indeed, why should any student go to a physical building or pay thousands to attend university if the quality of the education can be obtained cheaper or more conveniently from an internet connection.

In this sense, the disruptive forces of these so-called innovations are good. They are prompting brick-and-mortar education to up their game and change their modus operandi. To survive in such an environment, face-to-face learning will need to become more valuable that a simple one-to-many transmission of static knowledge.

In its replacement will emerge collaborative, multi-disciplinary, engaged, and personalized learning that delves into the deep questions. Teachers will no longer be “teachers” but rather facilitators of the learning process.

Technology will play a part in enabling this shifting of roles and learning environments, but it will never outright replace the vast majority of face-to-face education. In depth education is simply too multi-faceted, complex, and ever-changing for algorithms to ever produce.

iPad textbooks, iTunes U big step forward for distance learning

Posted on by
Reply

I was one of my city’s pioneers in online learning. I first switched in 2005 and graduated high school online in 2008. For me, the ability to manage my own time and set my own pace of learning was tremendously valuable.

The set up back then consisted of courseware hosted online through a private WebCT system. On this system, you could access assignment instructions and some basic curriculum, email the teacher, and use interactivity components if activated, such as discussion forums, embedded YouTube videos, or instant quizzes. Often times though, most of the learning happened via textbook.

In many ways, online learning was just traditional paper-based distance education upgraded. Instead of mailing the textbook and courseware to you to eventually mail back for grading, the exchange of essays occured online and courseware no longer needed to be snail mailed. This reality is often far from the grandiose visions of engagement and interactivity that technologists declare when pushing online learning or other technology-enhanced educational opportunities. In fact, I’d go so far as to say that, as it currently exists, online learning is essentially less engaging than a real classroom (most of the time), but its advantages in terms of time outweigh that downside.

With Apple’s announcement today of the new iPad textbooks, the iBooks publisher, and the re-designed iTunes U, online learning has taken a big leap forward. We currently require a student to sit down at a PC with their textbook on hand while accessing assignment notes off WebCT - this new educational ecosystem streamlines and enhances that whole process.

Instead, students will be able to access their courseware through the iTunes U app, dynamically linked to either professional or self-published interactive textbooks, all from their iPad. No longer is online learning tied to the desk or to paper. It is entirely hosted and managed from a lightweight, powerful, and affordable device that can be used for so many other purposes.

One of the most important aspects of this platform is its ease of use. Apple software is leaps and bounds ahead of the current technology in this space. WebCT has rightly been decrieded by all the students who’ve used it over the years. It’s dated, slow, and hardly engaging. And the software of the static, paper-based textbook is no doubt ripe for change itself. With this ecosystem, there’ll be less time spent on debugging and troubleshooting, and more time spent learning.

Another big component here is self-publishing textbooks. With iBooks Author, any individual or group can create a fully interactive textbook, with images, video, and quizzes, super easily. The textbooks can either be shared with others for free or sold for minimal expense on the iBookstore. This platform can enable teachers or government to create custom interactive textbooks with ease. Custom textbooks are often significantly cheaper than professional options and more customized to the actual curriculum, but do require time to be invested in their creation. Instead of worrying about layouts or printing costs, creators can focus solely on the actual content.

No doubt this requires buy-in to the full Apple platform. But so too did the iPod and the iPhone, ecosystems which, although locked-in, were far more powerful and easy to use than any of the alternatives. With these new tools announced today, Apple has presented itself as undeniably the optimal platform for online learning. While that doesn’t mean that online learning itself is in any ways more engaging than person to person education, it is definitely the next step forward in making online learning a more interactive and simple learning option for more people.

BC middle of the pack in education funding

Posted on by
3

Last week, I pursued some independent comparison calculations of education budgets across the country. I began this exercise with two contradictory lines in my head: one, from the BCTF, that education in BC in underfunded, and two, from the government, that funding per-capita has never been higher. What I attempted to do was find the real truth behind the numbers.

My initial calculations saw BC spend the lowest percentage of their provincial budget on education, relative to all the other provinces. Unfortunately, the number used in that calculation was not the right one. I had used the figure of $4.7 billion, taken from the BC Budget highlights PDF, a number that only accounted for school district operational grants. The full figure for the K-12 education budget is $5.9 billion. This mistake put BC well below other provinces.

The two posts were removed so as to halt the spread of false information. The fixed calculations are presented below.

The first chart looks at the percentage of each province’s budget goes towards education. The budgetary expenditures are taken from the 2011 budget estimates from each jurisdiction. Quebec is excluded due to budget reporting differences.

According to this statistic, BC is in the middle of the pack. It ranks fifth among nine provinces for the percentage of the budget committed to education. Ontario ranks first with 18.7%, a figure that correlates with that province’s government focus on all-day kindergarten, improved graduation rates, and improved post-secondary transition rates. The next three highest – Newfoundland and Labrador, Manitoba, and PEI – I would suspect amount to investments to transition into knowledge economies and halt the brain drain of their youth.

Next comes BC, ahead of Saskatchewan, New Brunswick, Alberta, and Nova Scotia. This ranking is perhaps surprising, considering the push being made in both New Brunswick and Alberta to update and reform their respective education systems for today’s needs. It appears as though money doesn’t factor into their plans. Therefore, on this marker, it could be argued we are spending the right amount on education, on par with other provinces.

The second chart compares each province’s 2011 education budget to the number of students for school year 2011-2012 as reported by each province’s Ministry of Education. The two numbers are used to calculate a per-capita figure for funding.

On per-capita funding, we drop from fifth to sixth among nine provinces. At the top is Newfoundland, again a figure I would attribute to a strategy to build an economic and knowledge core in the province. Manitoba ranks second, about a thousand dollars higher than third place Ontario. PEI is fourth, and New Brunswick edges out BC by about five hundred dollars. At $9085 per capita, the figure remains at the lower end of the comparisons, but is still significantly higher than last place Alberta, with only $7120 per capita.

These revised calculations force me to eat crow and take back what I had previously mused about re: boosting education funding. The statistics neither support nor deny the lines of either the teachers or the government. We’ve hardly fallen to last place, relative to other provinces, but nor are we top ranked in either category, leaving room for some improvement.

Ultimately, it depends on whether we are okay being in the middle of the pack in terms of funding. Some may argue we should strive to be first, showing a solid commitment to the future by making a bold investment in the area. Others may believe that as long as we’re not last, we’re doing just fine. Depending on the camp you’re in, you’ll pull a different conclusion from these stats.

What George Abbott said to the BCTF

Posted on by
3

George Abbott, Minister of Education, made an historic speech at the BCTF AGM today. It was the first time in a decade since a sitting Minister attended the annual convention of the provincial teacher’s federation, and, as President Susan Lambert noted, one of the few times a Minister of Education has actually been a teacher.

In speaking at the event, Abbott’s approachable demeanour and collaborative style was put on full display. Such a move was deliberate in setting the tone for a new relationship between BC’s teachers and Abbott’s new reign at the Ministry. He emphasized the need for a partnership between government and the BCTF, and to focus on that which unites the two institutions, rather than what divides them.

Abbott’s speech drew some faint lines in the sand however. He touched on the need for early intervention and mechanisms which support them, in essence reiterating the government’s support for early childhood education and the controversial FSA, which Abbott supported during his leadership bid.

Abbott shifted the dialogue to an often neglected sector – the late secondary school grades. Lamenting the poor outcomes for students who drop out, Abbott affirmed a need for more pathways to success in high schools, a statement which could be deemed in support of both trades education, as well as alternate schools such as arts or sports academies. “Choice” has often been decried by teachers as a means of weakening the comprehensive public schools and a route to increasing privatization of education.

Abbott also emphasized his support for Ken Robinson’s philosophies – creativity is the centre of human fulfillment and economic productivity and ought to be the focus of schools – sharing his dream that no child in British Columbia feel like a failure. Again, a statement supporting more choice or pathways in the education system. Abbott briefly touched on the disruptive technologies in our world today, telling teachers that schools must adapt and integrate the digital world in classrooms, lending credence to continued development of what educators call 21st century learning.

A new area of focus for Abbott, not before heard from government, was improving teacher satisfaction. Abbott assured the audience that while improving student outcomes was a priority, improving ‘teacher satisfaction’ in the workplace should also be an area of attention. As this is a bargaining year for the teachers, Abbott’s new focus could be one of the key concessions from government in a new contract. ‘Satisfaction’ in the workplace is often focused on the quality of the relationships, the level of autonomy and professional development opportunities, and a feeling of accomplishment and pride. While money is always a factor in job satisfaction, it is often not the highest priority – this could well point to a means of maintaining the government’s net zero salary increase mandate, while still providing for many of the requests long made by teachers about working conditions and respect for the profession.

Finally, Abbott also dropped a rather contentious issue when he spoke briefly about bad teachers. In the States, much of the rhetoric around education reform has centred on a perceived solution of removing ‘bad teachers’ from classrooms as a panacea to improved educational outcomes. While Abbott noted that ‘bad teachers’ are a small number, he did emphasize that they do exist. Even raising this topic could mean that Abbott, and the Christy Clark Liberals, will be seeking improved mechanisms of teacher accountability or the removal of bad teachers from classrooms. Deputy Premier Kevin Falcon suggested during his leadership bid that he would push pay-for-performance for teachers. While I doubt that Abbott would pursue such a controversial policy, one must question why the Minister raised the topic at all.

Altogether, I got the feeling that teachers were cautiously optimistic about Abbott’s new role as Minister and the resulting opportunity to build a new relationship with the government. The proof is in the pudding though, and Abbott is up against a horrendous record with regards to contract negotiations with the teachers – stay tuned to see what happens next.

University: More about the money, than the learning

Posted on by
Reply

I’m beginning to become increasingly disengaged with the education system – once again. I’ve come to realize that university, just like high school, has its own silent agreement – you pay the tuition, and so long as you don’t entirely flunk the class, you leave four years later with a degree. University has little to do with knowledge, intellect, or actual learning – it is literally a financial exchange. Students are consumers, buying a piece of paper that has increasingly become the bare minimum entrance requirement into a career.

It is frustrating, because although I came to school to get the degree, I’ve also seen it as a opportunity to learn. As a university student, I’ve consistently taken courses based on interest – whether that is sociology or psychology, Canadian history or First Nations studies. For me, grades really aren’t a big deal; I just want to learn new knowledge and improve my skills.

This was the case while taking classes through TRU-OL. The history class, for example, would consist of reading the textbook, perhaps some shorter articles, and writing four papers on select topics. I’ve found that I grasp knowledge better through the written word, than orally through lectures, so I had plenty of ‘aha’ moments (i.e. understanding the historical suppression of the Quebecois puts their current demands for autonomy into context). But the papers were also quite engaging, primarily because I received individual feedback from the professor on everything from content and form, to grammar and citations. The final exam, while including a small multiple choice section, also included terms, and two short essay sections. This format was replicated in English, Geography, and other classes.

In hindsight, I appreciated both the format, as it was more conducive to my learning style, but particularly the assessment. At TRU, assessment was formative; it was ‘for learning’. Grades on papers weren’t just a mark, they were supplemented with feedback, providing me with the information I needed to actually improve my writing and learning. This is in stark contrast to what I’m currently experiencing at SFU.

SFU feels like a monolithic institution, funneling its undergrads onto a factory-assembly line. None of my courses have been about learning something new. They’ve been entirely focused on mass instruction and weeding people out of the system. Nothing about SFU is individualized – students are just numbers with money in their pockets for the taking. This is illustrated in both the assignments and the assessment structures.

First off, there are next to no assignments in my classes this semester. There are no assignments for First Nations, nor for Archaeology. Geography has three one-paged summaries, which are supposed to help us improve our writing, although no feedback was ever presented. Statistics has the odd assignment, but again, they are just marked and no explanation is given as to why the question was right or wrong. Logic has weekly assignments, but they too are missing any feedback. Without feedback, or formative assessment, how in the world does the school expects its students to improve?! If you don’t tell me why I received a specific mark or made a particular mistake, how am I ever supposed to learn any differently?

Exams are even worse. Unlike TRU, which incorporated multiple learning styles and weighed them accordingly, all my midterms at SFU have been multiple choice. A lot of this depends on the prof, but you can tell most of the exams are specifically designed to ensure that the class average remains statistically low. There are questions on the test that address topics that aren’t even in the book. Plus, don’t forget that with a test of 50 questions, screw up just 10 of them and you’ve seriously put a dent in your GPA. Of course, multiple choice doesn’t really test anything in particular, other than one’s ability to retain and regurgitate as many mindless facts as possible. These high-pressure, poorly designed, shortly timed multiple choice tests have nothing to do with learning and everything to do with filtering out students and being a convenient mass form of “assessment”.

And the end of the day, that’s what I hate. Yes, I’m here for a degree, and yes, I’m paying you thousands of dollars a month for something I could obviously go learn in a library book, so please, make it about more than just a financial transaction. Can’t I get a degree and learn something valuable at the same time? If, in the end, all you care about is my money anyways, then why bother with this mass instruction, multiple choice crap anyways? Why not just give everyone an A after having sat through some prof’s sleep-inducing lectures for the past four months and let me get one step closer to that piece of paper with your stamp of approval? It’s obviously not about learning or stimulating young minds – or perhaps you’d like to change the rules of engagement?