James Hopkins summarises Mike Walsh’s uLearn18 keynote address and interviews Mike.
What does the future mean to the education industry? Futurists tend to get a bad wrap because they often make technological predictions. Mike Walsh argues that successfully predicting the future is more about paying attention to people, not the technology in their lives.
While in Japan, Walsh shared his thinking around Masayoshi Son’s ability to raise hundreds of millions of dollars by starting his thinking 15-20 yrs into the future, and simply working backwards to see what support and infrastructure would be needed to make that future a reality. He then goes to find those companies to invest in and if they don’t exist, he creates them! You see, what Masayoshi does differently is that he looks at the people needed to create a distant dream, not the technology. And so, Walsh surmises, we needn’t be looking at the current crop of Millennials to make predictions about education in the next 12-15 years, as by then, they will be “as old and as miserable as the rest of us!” The people we should be looking, Walsh describes as the most terrifying generation we’ve ever encountered, are eight year olds!
Why are eight year olds so different?
The way our current crop of primary aged students interact with technology is vastly different to the generation previous to them. Walsh points out that this digitally native group of users develops an almost intrinsic understanding of the algorithmic framework that drives interactions from an impossibly young age. It’s this genuine difference in the way they interact with technology that Walsh believes will lead to a very different way of thinking around the way we connect with and explore knowledge.
It’s not the screen that’s interesting, it’s the experiences and the way technology has interacted with it. YouTube has changed the way an entire generation watches TV. Every experience children have now has been customised and hyper-individualised by the data collected by social media. Children now are at the beginning of a true algorithmic society, a social credit score based society. Terrified yet? The currency and fabric of daily life is fast becoming driven by data, artificial intelligence, algorithms and machine learning. Computers themselves are constantly adapting, writing their own code and programming, no longer reliant on the dinosaurs of the MS-DOS prompt generation.
“The minute you joined Facebook, your kids left!”
Adaptive Learning
The reason adaptive and machine learning has so much potential is because it allows us to truly take the world’s knowledge, understand an individual’s needs and to personalise and tailor it to algorithmic, logical perfection. Students of tomorrow have the opportunity to be taken along their own learning journey, at their own pace and scale, for vastly reduced sums of money. As Walsh points out, this is not to say human teachers are not important, just that we are entering an age whereby content and opportunity can be delivered in a scaled way, that has previously been inconceivable. And we’re going to need it! Walsh continues on to share that the skills, knowledge and understandings required to function successfully in an algorithmic age are not being taught in today’s schools. As we stand at a precipice, faced with the landscape of tomorrow’s society, how can teaching knowledge and skills of yesterday, prepare leaders and learners of tomorrow? We need to start by articulating what those skills might be…
Automation of Industry
When farm jobs started to decline during automation, the westernised education system began to evolve. Many smart and forward thinking people realised the need to invest in new forms of education in order to prepare people for the future. Technology doesn’t destroy jobs, it simply changes them. It’s not always a straightforward process and often the realisation takes a little time. Sometimes enabling technology, even though it can be hugely disruptive, can actually increase the number of people employed in an industry. Take ATMs for example. Some bank tellers lost their jobs, however because paying the number of people who worked as tellers reduced, it meant that more branches could be opened- thus increasing the number of people working for the banks!
It’s becoming a case of looking at the type of people that will thrive in an environment that focuses on both the world of people as well as having a strong understanding of how to leverage data and apply it. Computational thinking is not about teaching children to code, it’s about how to leverage technology to break a problem down and find a strategy to automate its solution. Thinking about the future, this gives students the ability to both understand the essence of a problem as well as a knowledge of the tools and processes to combat it.
Key skills for the next generation
As we see the rise of this hybrid approach, the understanding of the problem and the data to solve it using computer science and technology, we need to teach the next generation to be more comfortable with ambiguity. We are in danger of preparing students for a world that has become obsolete by the time they leave education. The CEO of Netflix looks for employees that can exercise “good judgement in ambiguous situations.” This is harder than it sounds. As we leave a structured education system that has exams and allocated time, hierarchy and structure, and they walk into a world that has huge unknown, how can we make sure they cope. How do we teach students to process unpredictability and handle ambiguity?
Another element we need to help learners become aware of is the power of machine thinking and artificial intelligence. Here Walsh sites Deep Blue (an AI) beating world Chess Master Gary Kasparov. Reflecting on this event, it became clear that the computer was not trying to beat the world’s greatest human chess player by a substantial margin, it was simply trying to do the very minimum to win by just one point. What this means is that we need to understand how a computer ‘sees’ the world and problem solving. A computer will conserve resources, not try to focus on the end goal and winning big. A computer will work out the simplest way to win and this way is often not an approach that a human will see, let alone take.
The final element we need to take into account is to teach students to centre themselves, find the right moral compass and make good ethical judgements. Here Walsh suggests that perhaps studying computing is not the best way forward, but the studying of philosophy in order to help build decision making capacity using a strong moral compass. This is not about following the laws of a land, it’s about following the laws of trust, set by humans. As the debates around privacy and our data continue to rage, we are entering a time where understanding the tech is important, but understanding underlying motivations and human behaviour is even more valuable.
“The algorithmic age is an opportunity to embrace new and exciting ways of thinking…”
Q&A with Mike
Are our experiences within the digital economy going to get wider and bigger?
It’s impossible to not participate in the future. It may become impossible to get a bank loan or go about daily efforts as you’ll have no transparency and digital value. With kids, we have about 9-10yrs where people shelter them from tech. If we don’t teach them how to function appropriately and effectively, then how can we expect them to function?
How can we avoid programmer bias being transferred to AI?
This is important. We need to interrogate the code that is produced. How was the data collected? Are they discriminatory? There’s a need to have well educated teachers and others so they can be part of the discussion.
Small data: The rights, the voice and the individual. How do we as teachers ensure that the rights of our children are at the forefront?
People assume it’s a binary thing. They think it’s either about human interest or corporation driven outcomes. I see it as a combination. As we scale up good education into remote communities or for larger class sizes, it should be a partnership. Everyone is at a different rate of learning and we can leverage small or big data to find what someone knows and unlock their potential.
Teachers in the future: They need to be informed, discerning, questioning and listening. So what might it actually look like?
Teachers need to be as good as the tech they use. I don’t believe classrooms will disappear. The power of humans together is incredible. People working from home is beginning to end because their best ideas come from the old school analogue way of being face to face. In 10-20 yrs we won’t have virtual classes. If anything the tech will be less visible. It’s the data that sits behind it that will really shape the system.
Are humans learning to think less for themselves therefore teaching ourselves to becoming less intelligent?
In many ways we don’t have the same memories because we have google! We live in times when we don’t even need to remember phone numbers. Tech has become an extension of our memory and perception. Does it makes us stupid? I think it’s changed us. It should allow us to extend ourselves.
As someone who travels world as a global nomad – where do you think the patterns around where people live lie? Will travel decrease because of tech?
It feels like we’re going backwards. How did we lose Concord? Even with tech, our ability to see more digitally makes us want to see it more physically. I hope it will make people want to see more. Autonomous cars, flying cars and drones, all will change how we interact and how we design where we learn. We need to remember not to forget what it means to keep in touch and be human.
Image Credits
Mike Walsh Keynote Photo by Becky Hare via Twitter
VR Photo by Giu Vicente on Unsplash
Chess Photo by JESHOOTS.COM on Unsplash
Then there are Digital Natives. Native as a noun is defined as ‘a person born in a specified place or associated with a place by birth, whether subsequently resident there or not.’ Today’s generation of learners wasn’t born online. It’s simply something they’ve never known a world without. I often refer to the concept of working memory and formation of early memories in relation to digital technologies. ‘Few adults can remember anything that happened to them before the age of three. Now, a new study has documented that it’s about age seven when our earliest memories begin to fade, a phenomenon known as childhood amnesia’ (Wood 2015). So, if we suggest that most adults remember very little prior to seven years old it could be argued that today’s 18-year-olds have no working memory of a world without the following:
Although the graphic was clearly focused on online and digital device-based communication, I’m hoping it illustrates the point that when teaching strategies to communicate effectively, many of the lessons and etiquettes are applicable across both the real and digital worlds. I suppose we return to the William Zinsser (1998) quote, ‘Never say anything in writing that you wouldn’t comfortably say in conversation. Be yourself when you write. If you’re not a person who says ‘indeed’ or ‘moreover,’ or who calls someone an individual (‘he’s a fine individual’), please don’t write it’ (p. 27). It’s simply now understanding what and where ‘writing something’ is — it is most certainly not limited to pen and paper.
“The difference between constructive criticism and destructive criticism is the way in which comments are delivered. Although both forms are challenging your ideas, character, or ability, when someone is giving destructive criticism it can hurt your pride and have negative effects on your self-esteem and confidence. Destructive criticism is often just thoughtlessness by another person, but it can also be deliberately malicious and hurtful. Destructive criticism can, in some cases, lead to anger and/or aggression.” (Dealing With Criticism)
It’s not fair to assume that our reaction to every piece of criticism received will be the same. It is dependent on who the sender is, how it’s worded, and what the positive/negative ratio is.
For those using a text reader Click here
Much of the challenge remains around how we view the terminology we use. Looking specifically at the terms technology, literacy, and fluency, we could view them as a ladder. For many years the SAMR model presented as a ladder has been a successful metaphor and model used in schools. Teachers understand that reaching Redefinition will transform student learning. If we apply this to technology, literacy, and fluency, we start with technology, we step into an understanding of literacy, and finally, we reach fluency. Like any ladder analogy, we accept that no one is a superhero, and no one is able to fly straight to the top. However, what about when you finally make it to the top? If technology changes, are you still at the top or do you have to start climbing again?
Looking at the three terms with an interdependent lens, they may perhaps look something like the graphic (left). I believe they interweave, interlink, and must not be viewed without knowledge and understanding of the others. In much the same way as all must be experienced to reach the top of a ladder, the difference here is that we understand things from a cyclical perspective. ‘Digital technologies’ remains the what. It’s the thing we can point at and touch. In order to use it successfully, we need to understand how it works and how they could be implemented in teaching and learning. We need to be literate. For true success, though, we must be discerning. The splatter gun of ideas and short-lived experimentation must be limited to a phase and cannot become a habit. Therefore, we must know why we use the tools we do and never lose sight of the impact we desire it to have. We aim to be fluent. Whether you agree or disagree, I hope the clearest element here is that we cannot see the device, its function and its ability to transform learning in isolation. We need to understand all to truly leverage the power technology can bring.
The challenge we face is that technology is ever changing. Digital Fluency isn’t like your driver’s license. With that, you learn to drive, you sit the test, you are awarded your license, and that’s it. As long as you don’t commit infringements and stay within the guidelines of the Road Code, there’s no need to re-sit your test on a regular basis or reapply for your license. Why? Because the car hasn’t really changed in its functionality or primary operability in the last 50 years. Please don’t misunderstand me, technological advancement and changes to propulsion efficiency and method, comforts, accessories, and safety have been tremendous. But the actual process of driving hasn’t changed. Seat belt on, engine on, into gear (with or without a clutch), mirror, signal, check, manoeuvre.
But, stop for a moment and just think about what you can do with a $300 Chromebook that your Satellite Pro of the 1990s couldn’t. It video calls, it hooks up to the internet (without a dongle or cable!), it has no need to read CDs or DVDs. Its hard disk drive (HDD) is capable of storing endless multimedia that will wirelessly stream to no end of other devices and can be updated from even more. Unlike the phone, a modern laptop may still share physical appearance features with its ancestors, in much the same way as I have my family’s rather large nose, but the way they operate, and their user interfaces are extremely different.
Having recently visited a school with my parent hat firmly fixed on, I left with as many wonderings as when I stepped inside the doors. I couldn’t shake the question, ‘what else?’ Everything I was shown was fine. There were opportunities for growth and learning, steps being taken towards modern learning practice, and dabbling in the ILE world. All was absolutely… fine. So, why couldn’t I shake the question? It’s simple really. Being okay isn’t okay. Teaching and learning under the ‘That’s-What-We’ve-Always-Done’ mentality is just never going to be okay. I don’t for one second think this is the case in the school I visited. I wholeheartedly believe they had innovation and powerful opportunities for engagement and empowerment happening within the school; I just couldn’t see it. Their website touched on it, their inquiry model certainly talked about empowering learners and self-exploration, but as a visitor to the school and prospective parent, it wasn’t in front of me. No matter what question I asked or how subtly I pushed, the school’s uniqueness didn’t shine through. And it made me wonder… Is this what visitors to the school see? Is that okay? To a parent outside of education, what was shown was similar in some ways to the education they received. Surely that wasn’t the school’s unique value proposition?
In the busy life of schools, the must-dos of governance and Ministry requirements are, at the very least, time-consuming. Little time is left for the ‘should dos’, and they are dealt with the best they can be. For example, we should be promoting teaching as inquiry and establishing strong relationships both within and across schools. We should be strengthening our repertoire of skills and letting the ‘pockets of promise’ shine through. But what about the ‘could dos?’ It’s here that schools have an opportunity to push beyond the norm and define themselves as genuine institutions of modern learning. After the charter has been submitted and the data has been analysed, many leaders have little time to engage in purposeful conversations around pushing the boundaries of education. This is by no means a criticism; just the reality of the incredibly high pressured life of a leader in education. So often I’ve seen the pendulum swing away from future-focused education towards governance and accountability. And, it’s here where facilitators and consultants like myself have an opportunity to help make a significant change. Our role is not to show schools the way. We don’t have the map. But we do have the paper with which leaders can draw their own and decide on just what it is that makes them special.
.jpg){kind=link}
