Learning Aloud

A recent addition to the capabilities of Instagram prompted this post. Instagram has long been what I would describe as a photo blog. You post pictures from your phone and can add text. A couple of my kids are good photographers and we enjoy exchanging photos. Over the years, I have added a few other friends.

The addition to Instagram is an opportunity to create what are called “stories”. You can markup you photos and string a few photos together. What is weird about this new capability is that it disappears after a day (if I remember correctly). I don’t get the disappearing message SnapChat thing.

I can understand how tech types are fascinated with new services. We enjoy exploring all things tech. However, when tech types begin to promote one of these new services for education I become more cautious. I have already observed the promotion of Instagram Stories. Could I possibly imagine an application or two? Probably. That is not exactly my point.

I propose that promoters (and teachers) consider a sort of tool to tactic ratio. When it comes to promotional posts, this would represent the frequency of services to the number of posts regarding classroom applications and learning topics. You can observe a similar issue as most edtech conferences. What is the ratio of “new services and new gadgets” to interesting applications of existing services and gadgets. For teachers, this would represent the number of services taught to the number of projects or activities involving these services.

There is an issue of efficiency I think should be considered. This would be represented in the tool to tactic ratio. There is a learning curve for any new gadget or service. Try figuring out how to use Instagram Stories to see what I mean. You will have to locate an explanation and read carefully before you get the thing about swiping down after selecting the + icon to understand the difference between a regular post and a story. Tech types do not mind the spending more time learning than they do applying. Perhaps no one else does either, but a poor ratio takes away from the time available to teachers, students, and perhaps parents who might be expected or encouraged to view what their kids have created.

We are getting to the point where only an occasional new tool or service is really different. As an edtech educator and author, I have taken to developing categorization systems with lists of examples to try to improve efficiency. I tend to emphasize a few tools that are flexible and can be used in a variety of projects.

Instagram stories might make an example. I don’t like the disappearing thing, but even if I thought this was not an issue, I would likely promote “Explain Everything” or “Book Creator” as a more versatile tool that would overlap with the functionality of Instagram Stories.

The election season has encouraged the candidates from both parties to make comments about the debt associated with college costs and to offer vague comments to address the issue. The promises in some cases have gone so far as to eliminate the cost of tuition.

The following comments are my thoughts about college costs. I will limit these comments to the college environment I know – state institutions, with a teaching, research, and service missions, including graduate work as well as a medical school. My comments focus on undergraduates attending such an institution within their own state.

I think the general public fails to recognize the sources for the cost of college and too often attributes their negative reactions to institutions providing the education. Tuition costs while the cost politicians can most easily influence make up a relatively small part of the total cost of an education. This may not be the case if you are attending a private college, a college in a different state, or a graduate program. Universities likely encourage increasing tuition costs because this is such a key part of their revenue and end up at odds with politicians as a consequence. To make up for the lack of tuition, institutions may attempt to attract more students. Of course, this puts any given institution in competition with other institutions. As is the case in most competitive markets, you spend money in an attempt to make money. Great dining hall food (in contrast to what I remember from my college days), fancy health clubs, competitive athletic programs (with free or very low ticket prices for students), etc. contribute to these costs. It is difficult not to take on some of these expenses as it seems they are so popular with students and they will consider access to such opportunities in making their choice of where to become e.

So, where does all of that money students spend go?

• Tuition (see previous comments)
• Books (not under the control of the institution)
• Equipment – computers for most, specialized equipment in other situations (institutions provide some as part of tuition costs, but often this does not meet student needs or desire for convenience)
• Food and lodging (real costs and must be competitive if run by the university)
• Entertainment (part of tuition in a few cases, but seldom limited to this in the behavior of most students)
• Transportation
• Interest fees associated with loans

I wish anyone interest in college costs would consider this or a similar list and recognize who gets the money. If you want to blame someone, at least recognize who gets the money associated with your resentment.

Is education expensive? I guess this depends on what it takes to provide the experience, what proportion of the expenses are truly necessary, and what is the benefit from the experiences. Will politicians reduce the cost of education? I do not see how they will make significant differences. They may be able to influence tuition costs and perhaps the interest on student debt, but these costs are first only part of the cost of an education and second someone must cover these costs. Political relief would essentially spread these costs across the general population, but this will take a tax increase. We seem to not agree on even more basic human needs such as universal health care so I am not certain I see the public agreeing to free tuition for all.

A reminder – The return on the education investment tends to be quite significant on average so the cost incurred must be considered against this typical long-term outcome.

I have been thinking about this post for a while. It is an attempt to explain a general trend I think I see and find flawed. I call it educational impatience.

This problem is reflected is such issues as taking college credits in high school and an early  focus on occupation. I believe breadth before depth is far more practical. Yes – I said practical. If there is a trendy thing you require, I would suggest it is the “gap year”. Speeding up things that take time to develop has many negative consequences.

If you prefer to read a different interpretation with a similar conclusion, I suggest this recent post from the Washington Post.

I support of my reaction I offer two observations.

1. Students seldom have the background to make career choices when they begin college. Most students do not have enough life experience to know their particular aptitudes and passions.

A personal reflection – I started my education wanting to be a high school biology teacher and coach of some yet to be determined type. Looking back this was a product of the only world I knew. No matter how sophisticated you think your kid is this is still likely true of him/her as well.

Who goes to college to become a psychologist? I didn’t. I still remember explaining to my parents that I wanted to declare a psychology major. We made a deal. I would continue my biology major, add a psychology major, get a teaching certificate, and they would pay for summer school. I loved it. The combination ended up providing great long-term opportunities.  Who knew there were psychologists who studied the application of cognitive theory to learning and became competent computer programmers in order to investigate adaptive learning techniques? Who knew that students and college professors would have computers of their own? The computer science I could have studied was completely irrelevant and often still is.

I spent much of academic career as an administrator. As department chair, I followed the numbers and the numbers told me a lot. The number of psychology majors grew drastically from the freshman to senior year. Why? There were many factors. First, like I said few go to college to become a psychologist. Few understand the diversity of field beyond the strange understanding of what psychologists do. Most take a course or two as a requirement for many other majors and find they like the topics more than they like the topics of what they thought they wanted to study. Second, many were unrealistic about what they thought they were going to be able to do. Their preparation to the point of entering college had not offered realistic insight into their aptitude for various things. They thought they wanted to be a physician, but found they did not really like or could not handle physics, calculus, or organic chemistry.

The data are clear on one thing. More students change majors than retain their first major. Some of these changes are to a similar field, but clearly the original plan is often rejected. I still think the “freshman college” option makes a lot of sense. Take the basics and explore for a while first. The “wasted credits” some students accumulate and parents complain about because of the cost are likely the credits specific to a specific major. Maybe wasted is the wrong word – finding you are not interested in something early is a good thing.

2. Accepting stages of development

I used to teach James Marcia’s theory of ego identity (a brief Wikipedia explanation). The theory proposed two processes – crisis and commitment – that resulted in various “stages” of the development of the ego. Commitment is what is sounds like – investment in certain beliefs,  values, etc. Crisis does not sound like what it means. Crisis implied a personal, careful consideration of various beliefs, values, etc.

The four stages of ego identity resulted from various combinations of crisis and commitment. Strange as it might seem it is possible to be classified as a combination of commitment without crisis. This stage (called foreclosure) results from a tendency toward commitment without crisis. I used to explain this reality using religion (probably the only time I talked about religion in class). Some make a commitment to a specific set of religious beliefs because this is what they have always known and are told this is what is essential to accept. You might see how something similar would happen with vocation.

This theory has resulted in some interesting applied research. Using a methodology requiring students to explain their positions of multiple issues, students are classified into a stage and then other factors are related to this classification. What life factors make it more likely someone is classified in one stage vs another. What does being in a specific stage at a given point in time predict about the future. Researchers in college personnel fields (e.g., career counseling, advisement, student retention) used such methodologies to investigate student behaviors related to their fields.

In general, being foreclosed is not a good thing. It tends to be associated with self-doubt, resentment, leaving school, etc.

One interesting area of study has concerned the relationship between identity status and the reaction to life set backs (think divorce, losing a long held job, finding out you are not going to get into ned school). The popularized term “grit” might be a way to translate some of the findings. Grit might be described as weak when identity has been foreclosed. Accepting the  priorities of others rather than exploring and making personal commitments to priorities of your own is not a good thing.

Patience grasshopper.