Week 6, Another Brick in the Wall.

We don't need no education
We don't need no thought control
No dark sarcasm in the classroom
Teachers leave those kids alone
Hey! Teachers! Leave those kids alone
All in all you're just another brick in the wall.
All in all you're just another brick in the wall.

(Pink Floyd: Waters, Rogers)

Break down the wall. Let the kids out of the classroom and into the world in which they will live, lead and create.

I want to re-frame the assignment. The question isn't "why should we bring popular culture into the classroom?" The question of the week really is, "why isn't the world the classroom?"

Social efficacy, taken to it's logical end means that classroom bound, textbook driven, ideologically based TEACHING must give way to some sort of open, critical, inquiry driven system. Taken to an extreme? That if we can figure out how to support the developmental needs of children and young people, we can not only offer every kid a chance to meet their own amazing potential, we can energize and inspire culture and society today.

As much as I agree and cheer the authors of this week's readings, and pretty much all of the educational/social-reform oriented writers we've encountered in this class (strongly recommend for my own community) I don't believe they go far enough.  The social studies classroom, or science classroom or gymnasium is not the proper context for an adolescent. The world is.

Why don't we let kids out of the classroom? Dr. Moravec's innovation future of education (cite and web site) ties this freedom from blackboards to world-changing web 2.0 and beyond technologies. (His class, this lecture has inspired this thinking) 

Society 3 0

View more documents from John Moravec.

He also, and I laughed when I heard this, claims that to society (parents) today, the school's primary value is as baby-sitter -- a semi-productive and safe place to put kids during the work day. I found his perspective cynical until MEA week where "no-school" days during the work week caused havoc with a project schedule that impacted me -- and I don't have kids!

The bottom line, even among the youth serving, health and education communities, is that engaging young people this way is a major hassle. It's not part of my core responsibility as a professional, or outside the context of being a parent or aunt, so it is simply not a priority. "Youth engagement" in general and specific strategies like "youth action research" are hot, hot, hot in the public health community (Is there an equivalent in the education field? I'm probably just not engaged in it deeply enough, but I haven't seen comparable approaches.

Even these readings (thinking of media literacy, too) -- pretty radical to the mainstream system --  neglect the idea that involving youth in the decision making, programming, system that impacts them is the right (effective and "just"). I point this out because it impresses me that the public health community, even some segments of the broader research community are at least heading in the right direction. That said, adoption of these strategies is weak, at best. It's hard. We don't necessarily have the skills. Too busy. Lots of excuses for the fact that it just isn't a priority.

But it should be.

And the subject of popular culture is a particularly fruitful area to explore  what's possible when we look at how young people are engaged, taught, included.

Fact of the matter is that in the US, kids largely interact with the world through popular culture. The opportunities we offer them for broader interaction with the world are limited -- except for popular culture. After all, if school is a babysitter, what is TV? Describe another societal institution where young people are integrated with adults! Shopping? Arguably popular culture. Entertainment? Surely popular culture. And the areas where youth are segregated? Work. Education.

School and family just can't, by definition, meet all the developmental needs of a young person. Consider Gisela Konopka's requirements:  Where does a kid explore their own identity? Where are conflicting values discussed? Where are they likely to express themselves? Communicate their  feelings? Experience art? (GK).

The "popular culture in education" apologists point out (as do media literacy advocates, education reformers and technology enthusiasts), as the youth-serving community knows all too well, that young people meeting their developmental needs largely through popular culture is a very scary proposition. Moral panic! SEX! Bad health habits. Commercialism. SEX! Lack of consequences. SEX! We resent the impact that popular culture has in our lives, yet we, as adults, seem powerless to change it.

I believe that when it comes to popular culture and the media, young people have the power to change it.

Because isn't popular culture largely youth-driven?

Yet created by adults? Shaped by corporate interests? Framed by our experiences from a time that is past, compared to a the time that is now?

Engaging young people in the process of directly interacting in the world -- directly creating popular culture -- is and will be the only way to break through the cycle of sameness and repetition that is our mainstream media. What will happen to this vast echo chamber when 100 voices are chiming in, creating new, specialized echos that maybe don't reach everybody, but speak really well to a specific group?

This is already happening, to large degree, on the web.

But on TV or radio (only remaining large scale intrusive media) it's mostly the same old same old. Opportunity exists -- cable with all the specialized, interest oriented channels and programming. The fact that now we have entire news networks dedicated to different party affiliations is both disturbing and potentially thrilling. If I can find a political blog that matches my exact political interests and needs, why not a broadcast news program. Or the fact that community access TV makes it possible for an eighth grader's documentary on her experiences with race appear two channels away from the acclaimed CNN special?

Understanding, creating and redefining the content, priorities and methods of popular culture's media is the perfect setting for youth learning and enagagement.

Selling it.
I haven't entirely hijacked this assignment, have I? We were to write our defense of popular culture in the classroom, but I rejected the classroom, so ...

The second part of the assignment was to actually walk the walk, incorporate popular culture into your teaching/training.

I've had some experience with this, teaching media literacy to kids in school and afterschool programs, to adults through my professional trainings.

But the real questions for me in terms of application, and for my professional community, is 1) how to sell it and 2) how to implement effectively.

The rant above is the outline for the sales pitch. The popular culture advocates make a strong case, but I'm trying to find a compelling reason that actually benefits the larger community. Something that speaks to them. As it is, my "improve media" case will probably only interest those in the industry, which is a good start but not broad enough.

What would convince you -- reader -- to put 10% of your work time into guiding, training, mentoring, teaching a kid (that isn't yours) in your field, job, area of expertise, interest?

I suspect that its about more than a single message or training. I suspect that our own underlying attitudes toward young people get in the way. And that our funding systems and processes simply make it impossible, right now.

The idea that my coworker and I are pursuing is along these lines. In lieu of a lesson plan, here's the rough idea.

Use of web 2.0 technology is problematic for the public health community because of the steep learning curve, negative adult perceptions, lack of resources. Biggest barriers are internal policies which prohibit use!

As a work-around, we are proposing to micro-fund a project in a state or two that would engage young people (college aged?) through a youth-serving agency to collaborate with the health department on ways to use technology to reach their adolescent health goals. Besides funding, we'd assist with the collaboration and add a strategic overlay with our public health and communications backgrounds. We'd be looking at it as a big professional development project, where all the parties are learning to work well with each other and building each others' capacity. Imagine young people teaching public health professionals how to blog? Or creating a "What's hot on the web this week." The idea of a 18 year old instructing a gray-haired epidemiologist thrills me.

At the same time, it would be a proving ground (we hope) for viable youth engagement in public health -- it could change administration/management attitudes and perceptions that could open up new opportunities to support it at a systemic level.

Like state funding for similar projects.
Like requiring youth engagement for grantees.
Like re-evaluating technology policies.
Like re-considering the belief that young people have nothing to contribute.

We don't have to be another brick in the wall.

Week 6, Another Brick in the Wall.

Readings, Week 5

More adventures in technology! For this week's assignment, we were to explore the world of avatars, or as referred to when used in educational instruction: pedagogical agents or conversational agents or some combination of the two (depending on intent).

We were instructed to a web site to create our "agent"  http://www.gizmoz.com/  I visited the site and was, frankly, disappointed (we were warned!) with the technology. I looked at other people's projects and was not impressed. I tried to make my own and got a million errors. So I bailed and went to Second Life, which I was vaguely familiar with, and worked on an avatar there. Part of my dissatisfaction with gizmoz is probably because Second Life is my frame of reference with avatars.

I did have an interest trip down the wormhole of the web in using gizmoz, tho. I wanted to create a mini-news clip about framing teen pregnancy or teenagers so I did a YouTube search for videos about teenagers. The horrifying teen pregnancy commercial from the UK popped up. (Trying to embed this video was my first "forget it" moment with the application. Later, when I read the journal article that described how the kids' (and adults) would say mean things to the CAs/PAs when then couldn't be helpful, I totally empathized). That commercial -- yikes!

Aside:  It was part of the Leicester Teenage Pregnancy and Parenthood Partnership's, paid for by NHS Leicester City which appears to be part of the UK's public health system. Absolutely, positively horrifying and just plain wrong. I'm providing a link against my better judgment; I must focus on this weeks assignment and will postpone my rant.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRGgWBROuWs&feature=related

I'd been to Second Life http://www.secondlife.com because I saw an amazing presentation at a conference about uses of web 2.0 technology in the public health realm. Rachel Kuchar, who works in the AIDs/HIV prevention group, is also a web 2.0 specialist and she reviewed many different approaches, including CDC's "Island" in Second Life. What really got me interested was a project she described to teach kids about how germs/the flu gets spread. Someone would get infected and pass it along when they talked to someone else. The could only get rid of it by going to see a virtual nurse or doctor. I was impressed by this teaching method because it seemed to actually embed the learning into the kinds of things kids would do in Second Life instead of just "slapping on" some content about it (which is typically the case).

This "slapping on" of content is where we are at in the adolescent health community. If we just create a video, web site, whatever, we're "doing the web." This is far, far from realizing the potential of the technology so I'm always on the look out for truly innovative strategies.

I'm really too much of a novice to comment on how good or not good Second Life is, but the features and capabilities for creating your own avatar are really impressive.  Here is Gladys Zeminoba the avatar I created. I picked out the avatars name, gender, race, body size and shape, clothing, facial feature, hair style. I also did her make up, using some sort of special add-on I managed to collect somewhere a long the line. I spent A LOT of time on Gladys' hair and makeup. I honestly wanted to make her look good!

It was an interesting process because the reason I am creating the avatar is to represent myself. Each decision is somewhat of a reflection on how I want to appear, what I am about. When I visited the "Helping People Island," I ran into a lot (10?) of other people there. They all looked very well put together and more real than my own character and I felt a little embarassed about how I looked! Also because I don't know how to function that well and they all seemed competent. People wanting to chat with me finally drove me out.  I tried to visit the moon, but needed a space suit and didn't want to buy, or spend the time to find a free one.

This experience points to how this virtual world exploration (using an avatar, interacting with others) is not a ciick and play operation, yet. I'm fairly competent and parts of it were too challenging for me. The amount of time I'd need to invest to really figure it out and feel comfortable enough to take advantage of all Second Life has to offer doesn't seem worth it. A low ROI, as it were.

This gets back to the question of the week: Are pedagogical Agents (avatars, virtual selves) on the Cutting Edge of Teaching or a Big "Not"?

And the underwhelming answer is:  It depends.

In both of the journal articles assigned for this week's class research studies attempted to answer this question as well.

Doering, Veletsianos, Yerasimou's "Conversational Agents and Their Longitudinal Affordances on Communication and Interaction" explored 'which features of virtual characters may influence learning by examining students’ multiple interactions with and responses to conversational agents over time, as well as the effects the students believe these agents had on their learning."

Results: Not so good. Interesting findings about what the participants liked about the technology, but lackluster results specific to the task (educational students trying to create on-line portfolios). This highlights what I believe is the central tension with this technology (and maybe all advances?): what we want or need it to do tends to be based on replacing something we already know or do. And the technology can't do it the way we are currently doing it, so it just doesn't stand up to scrutiny/evaluation. Sometimes the technology catches up and we can shift towards or use the technology replacement. But mostly, I believe the goals are wrong. This orientation limits the potential of the technology. Where is the innovation?

In "When sex, drugs, and violence enter the classroom: Conversations between adolescents and a female pedagogical agent" University of Minnesota scholars Veletsianos, Scharber, and Doering tested a pedagogical agent application with middle school students. It was to assist them with a Google Earth activity. What the kids did instead with the application shocked the heck out of the researchers. Seems like some of the kids were more interested in having Grand Theft Auto style interactions with the agent that getting help with their assignment.

On one hand, this shouldn't be all that surprising. Especially when your agent is a female character interacting with adolescent males. The authors even point out that the development of identity and sexuality is a natural part of adolescence. Even the adults (arguably, older adolescents given the participants' demographics) had semi sexual interactions with the female avatar. In the focus groups at least one reported hanging out with his buddies "talking" to the avatar and there was "chuckling" over this topic. Doering also noted in the Conversational Agent research that the participants wanted to "customize" their avatars based on their own attractions. Hmm. Not hard to imagine students creating their own Angelina Jolie or Brad Pitt avatars. And will that encourage or support their learning or engagement?

These findings all made me curious about how how the avatar looked impacted the interaction. Particularly with the younger participants, I wanted to know how they demographically compared to the avatar that was used.

Does this agent look like someone a teenage boy would respect? And what if that boy was Latino? Or African-American? Why the pearls? A host of cultural competence questions came to mind.

Most readers of the Veletsianos article were probably appalled by the teenagers' behavior and their negative perceptions of teens reinforced. The knee jerk reaction would be to indict the entire use of the technology and/or insist on teacher monitoring. While I'd agree that there needs to be accountability for bad behaviors, on-going monitoring both defeats some of the purpose of the technology and could ultimately restrict how the kid interacts with it so much that again, the purpose is defeated.

The study made me excited to think about how the teen pregnancy prevention community that I work with could probably program/design excellent content/interactions to  deal with sexual inquiries. It would be amazing to be able to convert the kind of inappropriately presented sexual questions/banter into a learning moment about respect, relationships, sexual orientation, gender overall. Instead of an agent that responds "I'm too young for that" when the teenager asks "Are you virgin?" I envision  a discussion on what it means to be a virgin, why one decided to have sex, when sex is appropriate, why being a virgin matters, and so on. The teen pregnancy prevention community is already working on web site sex education advisors, even texting based applications. Why not reach into this area? Collaborate with education/instruction technology creators?

My conclusion (based solely on this week's reading and some prior research) is that the avatar technology isn't there yet or we haven't found the right applications yet. I wouldn't go as far as labeling it a "big nothing," but I'm not yet impressed. However, this investigation did inspire one application for me professionally.

Thinking about how AWFUL video, audio and web conferences are, I wondered about ways to use avatars to address the lack of interaction and engagement. The programming capabilities of Second Life and those described in the journal articles seemed impressive. Would it be possible, I wondered, to design a very easy to use application that allows participants in on-line trainings to create simple avatars and populate a virtual classroom or meeting space? Each participant would be able to "speak" through some sort of moderation system and more importantly, respond with non-verbal cues to the speakers and/or other participants. As a participant I could "look" interested, confused, maybe even a little bored.

Having this kind of control would engage the listening participants (which I believe is the big downfall of these apps right now -- so BORING! There's nothing for me to do or engage with so I end up multi-tasking and getting distracted) and give the speaker instant feedback. Again, the ROI question would need to be addressed. The amount of time it would take me to get set up, create my avatar and learn how to use (or as a trainer -- set up the entire system!)  would need to outweigh or at least be counterbalanced by how much satisfaction I got from using it. That said, the application I propose here addresses a very real user problem/need and that, in an of itself, might be the key. For the applications discussed in the article, a real alternative exists: ask a real person!

Readings, Week 4

Adventures in homework.


Started when I decided to print out this week's reading to take on the plane to Seattle. I know, ecologically very unfriendly. And it gets worse. As usual, crunched for timing, multitasking I'm printing and realize  the queue isn't moving and I'm cursing and annoyed because I think Firefox has sent some bad stuff and crashed the printer (it happens quite a bit, actually. very frustrating) but it turns out the printer is out of paper and what I expect to be 8-10 pieces of paper is a 1.5" tall stack. And there's more to come. In printing the article:

Genderplay: Successes and Failures in Character Designs for Videogames

Posted April 16, 2003 by jane

I ended up printing 1.5" of the comments that accompanied her 5 page write up. A further indictment of my lack of imagination in printing the darn thing -- the article is chock full of great links worth pursuing. I am continually amused by my own habits and routines and how clearly they label me as the digital immigrant that I am. I did feel guilt, for what it's worth. I'm still more comfortable with paper. Go figure.



The article I killed a tree to print was written by Jane Pinckard in 2003  for her gender-attentive blog: Game+Girl=Advance. Apparently she got her blog's name from her frustration and fan appreciation for the "Game Boy." As a woman, Jane is a unique figure in the gamer world and according to this MTV bio and interview, she has worked (and might still) for a bunch of big deal gamer magazines (GamePro and Xbox Nation) and hi-tech publishing giants Ziff Davis and the CMP Game Group.

Women Working In Games: Game Girl Advance's Jane Pinckard Talks Lara Croft, Male vs. Female Gamers

Posted 12/11/07 8:46 am ET by Tracey John

I had a hard time figuring out what Jane is doing right now, but it she might be working on a new game. I had better luck tracking down the "man" she discusses in her article, who is also the blog's Managing Editor, Justin Hall (hasn't posted at the blog since 2006, tho). But he, too, seems to have some real significance in the gamer world from my cursory research. I'd heard of MMORPG: Massive multiplayer on-line role-play games but his team made a "passive" version using the Firefox browser. Intriguing, but retired now. Now they've got a FaceBook based game. His bio mentioned that he "created one of the early extensive home pages, “Justin’s Links from the Underground” in January 1994. In 2004, the New York Times Magazine referred to him as “the founding father of personal bloggers.”" Suffice to say, they are both digital natives.



It is amazing to be able to do this much research so quickly. Thank you, google. Granted, far from complete, but it is so satisfying to get a picture of the author, their experiences, orientation, perspective. I consider this a critical part of the media literacy required for our young people. As digital natives it could all too quickly become just a seemingly innocuous background -- the pretty set decorations or landscaping that you take for granted until you realize that they've been so cleverly constructed to lead you one way or another, make you interested in one path or another. Which is why I always research the people behind the stuff I read. Notice my new interest in embedding the links that I find. Such a small step, but I'm proud!



Jane's criteria for evaluating genderspace were awesome - and I want to see her basic definition "The way gender is prgrammed (sic), incorporated, and manipulated describes a "gender space"" included in the media literacy guidelines in some way. And as Jane herself points out, gender is only one consideration in this genre -- race is also a prominent area of concern.



Because who creates the content matters. Content is created with purpose, content is created intentionally.  There is no such thing as an innocuous background. It all has intent.



Which is why I always read comments -- someone always offers a joke or insight or snark that creates a new way to see or understand what I just read. It's a window on the temporary members of a conversation -- what they think and who they are. So many audience insights! So I find it fascinating and hilarious to read (ok, skim) that 1.5" stack of comments.


((The addition of comments to on-line news and blogs is one of my personal favorite web 2.0 innovations. I often find the comments better than the article, as if the article is just the appetizer and the comments the actual meal. Certainly this is a comment on me, my voyeurism, my love of debate, my fascination with hearing different perspectives -- my desire to understand how people frame the issue so that i can find a compelling way to sell my (product) agenda, meet my goal. So they are like mini-research projects in themselves and wouldn't it be great to find the time to quantify responses!))
 
And it seems that Jane's perspective is, despite it's geeky-gamer-thinker-innovator substance, still gets the largely male gamer community all riled up and so obviously in need of the tolerant and strategic Jane.

"Criticizing them (BG:DA and Tomb Raider) as if they're evidence of some pervasive air of exploitation in gaming is like holding up some schlocky teen comedy movie as an example of why American movies are immature. It's taking the rare (and rarely popular) exception and calling it a rule. They're fun to mock, but they're not really evidence of a serious problem."

 Translation: We're not involved in sexism. It's not a problem in our (male dominated) society.

"I was glad to find a link to an article about women in video games that isn't just ignorant vitriol, though. It's been awhile since I've seen an article like this that doesn't make outrageous complaints, like complaining about a scantily clad girl in a video game when one of the other playable characters is an impossibly muscular young man with an intense hatred of upper body clothing 

Translation: I'm equally hurt by their stereotypes/sexism. Feminists are bitchy and stupid.

"It's also nice to hear that pinup games like DOAXVB aren't a sexist male conspiracy that will send planet Earth into a vicious spiral of rape, murder, and, somehow, also racism. The world, and especially this discussion, could use more people with an "it's not my bag, but it's okay if it's yours" attitude."

Translation: I have absolutely no idea that gender = privilege. And I got nothing against you gals.

Posted by: DarkZero on April 17, 2003 01:11 PM

Sadly, DarkZero's perspective was not in the minority. Many comments qualified their defensive denials, they seem to like Jane and how she thinks, but it is not an issue for the majority and they are offended by the idea of it. I think they don't see it, don't think about it critically, just reflexively. For them genderspace is just a backdrop, scenery. I am relieved to know that Jane's voice is out there - calling attention to it by her presence and words.



Jane makes her case clearly, as do three generations of feminist scholarship on the topic. Our digital native youth know that they can create their own content at one level, but the highest levels of creative, artistic expression in this genre -- as is true in the motion picture and music industry -- are male dominated. I saw this myself at the advertising agency. Male creative teams were typically considered much stronger than the female teams, different product was expected from them -- work that was more out-there, explosive, cutting-edge, risky -- and this approach also reflected the essential value system of the agency: do what is new, edgy, ground breaking to win us awards and prestige. In trying to find Jane, I was sent to Foundation 9 Entertainment (gaming co.). Check out their staff page. Wanna guess how many women are there? Still couldn't find Jane, BTW. Spot-on humor from the comment's on Jane's article:

go play with your dolls. and make me a sandwich!

Posted by: manly mcman on April 17, 2003 01:35 PM

The concern over genderspace (who creates it?  with what agenda?) in video games -- and all media -- intersects with the question of the week:  Is, and if yes, and what role video games should/can/do play in the education of young people?  I wouldn't consider myself a gamer, but I've played enough to have a clue. I also appreciate the magic of programming and the art that is computer graphics.



Negative perceptions of this genre abound, and most of the public discussion focuses on the dark sides (our critics document them in the health journals that are popular among my professional acquaintances). It was interesting to see the article by Jane included in our readings and identifying a "dark side" that is only tangentially attended to by the adolescent health community. We are way more interested in obesity right now, thanks.


Both of the other readings offered the sunny side, both made a compelling affirmative case, both made some practical suggestions. I share the authors' orientation and have a vest interest in the success of their advocacy. Too often we true believers are stooped in a posture of defensiveness.



IMHO, the best sell job came from the posting at Henry Jenkin's blog "Confessions of an Aca-Fan." Jenkins is Director of the Comparative Media Studies Program at MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology). The article is written by Scot Osterweil, creative director at the Education Arcade at MIT, part of the partnership that created the learning game -- "Labyrinth" -- which this article describes. In describing the game, there is much attention paid to learning styles, adolescent development, popular culture and classroom culture. I was particularly impressed at the developers dedication to the plight of the teacher and how clearly they made ease of incorporation in the curriculum a priority. It was satisfying, given my advocacy work, to see clear references to adolescent development. I cheer their recommendations for reversing the "teacher transmission of knowledge to student direction" as a way to further engage and empower the students, change/enhance the teacher's perspective of the student, and address the teacher's own time crunch issues.


The other article, The Classroom of Popular Culture: What video games can teach us about making students want to learn, James Paul Gee in this Harvard Education Letter outlines a good case for the inclusion of games in the classroom. Gee is an linguist with professional affiliations at Arizona State University and the University of Wisconsin, Madison. Apparently gaming is a relatively newer interest of his. The parallel between achieving mastery in a video game and education was well drawn and compelling. His reporting of how video game designers were so successful at creating and using strategies that allow the player to gain skill and enjoy themselves, and the idea that it could transfer over to the classroom was impressive to the teacher on my blog chat tonight.



I resonated with his idea  "It is ironic that young people today are often exposed to more creative and challenging learning experiences in popular culture than they are in school" and find it both frightening and thrilling.



Frightening, because those popular culture learning experiences come with a price tag (in the form commercial motivations). Are these trappings just an innocuous background to young people? How critically do they examine it?



Frightening because even those wonderful gamer geeks have a hard time seeing sexism or racism in their community.


Thrilling because today, more than even before, young people can actively engage in creating that popular culture and it's content. And that can change everything.