Book review – Everything bad is good for you

I just finished reading Everything
Bad Is Good For You
. The author, Steven Johnson, makes a quite-convincing
case that today's popular culture and media (video games, television, Internet,
movies), rather than being 'cheap pleasures that pale beside the intellectual
riches of yesterday
,' are much more cognitively complex than what we had
available to us just a decade or two ago. If you haven't yet read this book, I
highly recommend it.
has a short blurb on the book along with a number of excellent links to other
resources and commentary.

One of my favorite parts of the book is at the beginning. First Johnson
quotes Marshall

The student of media soon comes to expect the new media of any period
whatever to be classed as pseudo by those who acquired the patterns of earlier
media, whatever they may happen to be.

Johnson then hypothesizes what critics might have said if video games
preceded books rather than the other way around:

Reading books chronically understimulates the senses. Unlike the
long-standing tradition of game playing – which engages the child in a vivid,
three-dimensional world filled with moving images and musical soundscapes,
navigated and controlled with complex muscular movements – books are simply a
barren string of words on the page.

Books are also tragically isolating. While games have for many years
engaged the young in complex social relationships with their peers, building and
exploring worlds together, books force the child to sequester him- or herself in
a quiet space, shut off from interaction with other children. These new
‘libraries’ that have arisen in recent years to facilitate reading activities
are a frightening sight: dozens of young children, normally so vivacious and
socially interactive, sitting alone in cubicles, reading silently, oblivious to
their peers.

But perhaps the most dangerous property of these books is the fact that
they follow a fixed linear path. You can’t control their narratives in any
fashion – you simply sit back and have the story dictated to you. This risks
instilling a general passivity in our children, making them feel as though
they’re powerless to change their circumstances. Reading is not an active,
participatory process; it’s a submissive one. The book readers of the younger
generation are learning to ‘follow the plot’ instead of learning to lead.

As Johnson notes, these new forms of communication, participation, and
learning have worth. They're not the vast intellectual wastelands that cultural
critics often claim them to be. Reading still has a great deal of value, as Johnson clearly
states in other parts of his book, but so do these other forms of media. We might sometimes wish that the
subject matter or content matter of these media forms were different – for
example, I personally wish that some video games weren't so violent and gory – but the
bottom line is that the intellectual complexity of popular media is much greater
than before. We would be better served to tap into the affordances of these new
media forms rather than criticizing them simply because they're new and

I give this one 4 higlighters.


Learning Spanish virtually

Yesterday I uploaded our third CASTLE Conversations podcast. I interviewed Julie Sykes, a doctoral student here at the University of Minnesota, about her Spanish Pragmatics Project, which is using virtual world software (like Second Life) to help postsecondary Spanish students learn how to communicate effectively with native Spanish speakers. Screenshots are included with the podcast.

The intent of CASTLE Conversations is to interview folks that have expertise and are
doing interesting things but may not have much national visibility. Keep giving us feedback and let us know what
you think. As always, we’re interested in your nominations for interviewees.

Happy listening!

100% proficiency on old skills?

Here’s something if you have a 60- to 90-minute block of time with educators…

100% Proficiency on Old Skills? A Candid Conversation About the Demands of NCLB and Preparing Students for the New Economy

P.S. This presentation is better than the one I did last week.

More on Prensky

00podcast16x16_15 Listen to this post!

Dear Kelly, as usual, your recent post is deeply thoughtful. So is your comment to my previous post. That said, I don’t feel like you’ve quite captured why people are supporting Prensky on this topic of engaging students. For example, in your post you cite this quote from Chris Lehmann:

I used to say to my English classes, ‘Hey, on a warm spring day, I’d rather be outside playing Ultimate frisbee than teaching English, but we all have to be here, so let’s find a way to make it meaningful.’ The flaw in Prensky’s article is that there is a difference between recreation and work.

No one’s arguing against English. What we’re discussing is the importance of meaningfulness and how you get there. It’s awfully difficult to teach in a non-engaging way but still impart meaning. Why? Because you can’t get anyone’s attention. Folks can rail about the injustice of that all they want, but it’s reality.

As I noted in my post, and as any gamer can tell you, good video games are hard work. They also happen to be fun and engaging at the same time. It doesn’t have to be either one or the other. As Jim Collins would say, visionary organizations "do not oppress themselves with … the ‘Tyranny of the OR’" but rather recognize that we can have both at the same time. What Prensky and others are advocating is that we understand that students have the opportunity at home through video games and other technological experiences to do work that is both hard AND engaging. Then they head to school where too often the work is just hard (or perceived as irrelevant) but NOT engaging. But we expect students to do the work anyway, and then we get frustrated because they push back or tune out.

I don’t think anyone is arguing against struggle. I don’t think anyone is arguing that some stuff is ‘difficult and mundane.’ I don’t think anyone is telling kids that life is like a video game or is ‘confusing fun with life skills’ or thinks that we should ‘just let kids play until they’re 21 and then see what happens.’ What we are noting (as do you) is that there are ways of teaching that make the difficult and mundane more interesting, more engaging, and more relevant. There are ways of teaching that go beyond simply blaming kids for their inattention and put more of the ownership for student learning on us. This is a very similar theme to what we’re seeing in the data-driven decision-making arena: schools that take greater ownership of and responsibility for their students’ learning end up with better student learning outcomes than those that simply say, "Well, we taught it. Now it’s up to the kids." The bottom line is, if the kid isn’t learning, your instruction isn’t successful. If you have to be more engaging to make it happen, so be it. That’s part of teachers’ jobs: to be interesting and engaging enough to capture and keep kids’ attention on the learning task and to be able to explain the relevance and meaning of the task sufficiently to motivate kids to work.

People work hard when they find meaning in the task. This is true in school. This is true in life. Yes, there’s some mundanity in life, but I think it’s tough to argue that mundanity is a desirable aspect of schooling, one we should be arguing to retain. If the task to be done today is mundane but will pay off for kids later, it’s our responsibility as educators to explain that to kids in such a way that they buy into it. Just telling them it will be good for them later, and then getting frustrated because we don’t get buy-in, doesn’t cut it. Again, that’s our fault, not theirs.

You note in your comment that the lecture and note method is out of style in most classrooms. I wonder if most people would agree with you. I know from the hundreds of schools that I’ve personally visited that worksheets are by no means out of style. I know that teaching the same thing to all kids, regardless of whether some kids are ready for it or whether some kids already know it, is still predominant. I see a lot of teachers that are seemingly trying hard to engage kids but still haven’t found the magic formula. When this happens, it seems that we have two choices: keep trying to figure out the answer or blame the kids. And while many teachers keep plugging and keep looking for new solutions (including those that involve technology and/or gaming), many begin to blame the kids. It’s these latter educators that I think all of these Prensky advocates are arguing about. I love this recent Seth Godin post: "We’ve ‘tried everything,’ by which we mean we’ve tried a few things that everyone else has done as long as they didn’t involve doing anything differently from what we normally do." For many educators, he hits it right on the head.

All of this has always been true. What is different now (and why Prensky’s article is so salient) is that until recently kids didn’t have anything to compare teachers’ instruction against except other teachers. Now they have these high-powered learning environments called video games that are purposefully designed to keep kids’ brains in their own individualized zones of proximal development. The subject matter may be questionable, but the intentional cognitive engagement that is occurring is not. Personally, I’m not certain that most teachers can ever compete against that. But we have to try if we’re going to stay relevant to students. We can’t expect them to pay attention to us just because we want them to. Discarding rigor or difficulty is not the answer. Finding the right balance of engaging activities (or technologies) to ensure student attention is the answer. Again, to come back to Seth Godin’s quote in my previous post, it’s not the kids’ fault that we don’t have their attention. It’s ours. How do we know when we’re successful? Not when we say we are but when the kids’ actions show we are.

I’ve read your post and your comment each half a dozen times now. I don’t know if we’re that far apart but I wanted to at least note where I think we may differ. Maybe you’ve been blessed with a good teaching staff. Maybe you see less of this because you’re a great administrator. From your blog writing, I’m guessing that this is true. But there still are a lot of teachers who blame students for their lack of engagement and their lack of learning. They may not be the majority, but there are enough of them to be concerning (to me at least). I can’t quite tell if you’re okay with that or not (for example, you note that at age 14 it’s awfully hard to get kids to respond to anything). I’m willing to say that it’s our fault, not that of the students, and that we have multiple examples (including Chris Lehmann’s own school) where middle and high schools have found ways to keep adolescents meaningfully engaged with course content. And, yes, in some of those schools they’re recognizing that technology is not a prerequisite but can be a powerful helper.

You asked what in my own life I’ve found useful from my schooling experience. I was fortunate to have enough good teachers in my life (both K-12 and higher ed) to

  1. instill in me a love of learning and a loathing of seemingly-meaningless work;
  2. motivate me to become an educator myself and serve others;
  3. challenge me in engaging ways to become a better thinker and writer;
  4. show me that school should be about more than just "babysitting;" and
  5. help me see that good teaching is not about the teacher but about the learner.

Here’s what I’m struggling to see: Why are folks arguing so hard for
boredom? Why are folks arguing so hard for mundanity and slogging
through? Why can’t we escape ‘the Tyranny of the OR?’ In my own life I’ve found that the more my work is also recreational, the more I like it. It’s not that I’m engaged in recreation instead of work. It’s that my work becomes more recreation-like (i.e., fun, engaging, interesting). If people work at it, align things right, and maybe get a little lucky, the difference between recreation and work can be awfully slim and life can be rewarding and energizing. There’s tremendous power in being in a job that seems like play because you like it so much!

Thanks for your thoughtful extension of the conversation. I am highly enjoying your blog and appreciate your willingness to think both deeply and publicly about leadership issues. We need more principal bloggers like you. I don’t know if any of us are adding anything new to the discussion, but I’m guessing that those of us who are having the conversation are probably learning at least a little bit.

My take on Prensky

00podcast16x16_14 Listen to this post!

There are some great conversations going on right now about Marc Prensky’s article, Engage Me or Enrage Me. One is at Dennis Fermoyle’s blog; the other is at Chris Lehmann’s blog. I love these types of conversations because they force us to examine what we really believe about motivation, learning, and good instruction.

I just started reading Everything Bad is Good for You, by Steven Johnson. One of the first points the author makes is that most good video games are HARD. They’re frustrating. They cause players to think and stew about them even when they’re not playing the game. It’s not that the gaming activity is easy. On the contrary, like a good hobby, it’s that the activity is challenging AND considered worth the work by the player.

We shouldn’t be making our schools fun at the expense of solid intellectual engagement. But making students’ classroom time more fun (or engaging, or whatever you want to call it) will help them learn more. Teachers who say it’s not their job to keep their kids’ attention during class time should, in my opinion, immediately be placed into a remediation program to improve their instruction. It’s not the kids’ fault if their teachers are boring or haven’t put together lessons that interest students (e.g., I just did a study of some high schools in which 68% of over 1,000 students said ‘Most of our work is busy work’). Or, as Seth Godin puts it…


Too often we educators (both K-12 and higher ed) say that ‘We’ve put together a good lesson, now it’s the students’ responsibility to meet us halfway.’ But Godin’s quote puts that belief to the test because it doesn’t hold up very well in the real world. In our own lives we don’t waste our valuable and limited attention span on stuff that doesn’t interest or engage us. To say that kids should because it’s in their best interests is disingenuous and morally dishonest. We have to make the case. Otherwise we deserve the consequences. Alfie Kohn has a wonderful quote in The Schools Our Children Deserve: "Might we have spent a good chunk of our childhoods doing stuff that was exactly as pointless as we suspected at the time? (p. 1)" [For those of you who might bring up the fact that work isn’t always interesting but we have to slog through anyway, I’ll point out that 1) no one made you work in that job and/or for that employer, 2) job mobility is way up (people are trading autonomy for job security), and 3) we make students go to school through mandatory attendance laws – they have no choice but to be there.]

Right now I think students go home and are immersed in learning environments (i.e., video games) where the end product is considered to be worth the hard work. Then they go to school and too often don’t feel that way about what they do in their school environment, either because of lack of engagement or lack of perceived relevance. That is the challenge, and that is how I read Prensky.

Side note: Chris used the word gumption in his blog post. The third definition for gumption at is ‘common sense.’ Using that definition, I’d argue that students that are tuning out of irrelevant or uninteresting lessons are showing a lot of gumption. Unless the teacher or school organization had successfully made the case for why it was worth my time to slog through anyway, I know that’s what I’d do and I strongly suspect that most others would too.

Chicago digital youth afterschool program

Gerry Beimler, who is Manager of Leadership Development Programs for the Chicago Public Schools Office of eLearning and one of our School Technology Leadership graduate certificate students, forwarded me this story about the digital afterschool program at North Kenwood / Oakland Charter School in Chicago. Grants from the MacArthur Foundation are facilitating incredible digital experiences for the students in this program, most of whom come from socioeconomically-disadvantaged familes.

The program operates on the assumption that digital technology can be used as a constructive force and, possibly, a necessary force to equip children with the technological literacy skills they will need to be competent in this age of iPods, cell phones, e-mail, computers and countless other gadgets. The program uses cutting-edge educational strategies to introduce middle school students to the creative uses of digital technology. It has existed for only one year, but students in the program are already creating robots, programming video games, transmitting podcasts, recording original rap music and producing digital documentaries.

Read the article – there’s some very cool stuff happening in this program. Now all we have to do is replicate what’s happening in this building after school into the regular school day and across multiple schools and districts. Gerry, thanks for sharing this inspiring tale from Chicago.

Gaming, cognition, and education – Wrap-up

Yesterday I concluded my series of posts related to gaming, cognition, and education. The purpose of the series was to illustrate some of the powerful learning principles that are present in video games, particularly role-playing games where a participant takes on the role of a character interacting with her environment and/or others. The learning principles that I discussed help explain why a kid who can’t sit still in class for five minutes can be mentally locked in for hours at home playing video games.

The series only highlighted 18 of the 36 learning principles described in Dr. Jim Gee’s book, What Video Games Have to Teach Us About Learning and Literacy. I selected principles from the book that I thought were particularly powerful aspects of electronic learning environments. These principles are present in K-12 classrooms to varied extent, depending on the school and/or teacher. However, it is important to note that these principles, even when present, typically occur in K-12 classrooms only some of the time while for video games they are the bedrock foundation of the learning platform and are present nearly all of the time.

I think that video games, or virtual simulations, or whatever we want to call them, will be a key component of classrooms of the future. The learning principles and potential will be too powerful to ignore for much longer, particularly as we move closer to every student having some kind of computing device with him or her 24 hours a day. Also, educators are starting to recognize that the ability of computers to facilitate students’ self-paced learning can free up teachers to spend more time with students who need extra help or who are ready to move ahead. One of the biggest challenges for K-12 teachers is differentiating instruction for a classroom of students with greatly-varying ability levels. Computers running educationally-valuable electronic learning environments can help immensely with this issue and can be powerful tools for savvy educators.

As the educational and/or ‘serious’ games movement grows, we will begin to see complex, realistic, accurate simulations of ancient civilizations (e.g., Colonial Williamsburg, the Maya, Great Zimbabwe), historical events (e.g., the Pelopponesian War, the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, the Long March), scientific and mathematical processes (e.g., space exploration, Archimedean physics, Euclidean geometry), and the like. I am looking forward to this day. Right now even the most popular education-oriented games (e.g., Reader Rabbit, JumpStart, Oregon Trail, Where in the World is Carmen Sandiego?) have been notably simplistic compared to commercial virtual worlds such as Second Life, EverQuest, and World of Warcraft. I believe that education-oriented simulations will be much better at stimulating deeper, richer learning than the textbooks, videos, and learning games of today. It’s hard to argue that making authentic decisions in the role of a pharaoh or a slave or a farmer, while immersed in the realistic sights, sounds, and activities of ancient Egypt, wouldn’t be a better, more meaningful, and more permanent learning experience than merely reading a few textbook pages, seeing a few pictures, answering some “drill-and-kill” multiple choice questions on the computer, or watching a short video on the subject.

To facilitate easy dissemination to teachers and administrators (hint, hint!), this 8–page PDF document contains the text and hyperlinks from the week-long series:

If you’d like to share the series with educators but would rather send them a URL, send them to this post. Here are links to all six posts:

If you liked this series, please share freely and encourage others to do the same. In addition to the document and links above, here is another tool to help educators think about the cognitive and educational aspects of video games (any feedback you have on this would be welcome). Note that the spreadsheet can be initially completed by individuals or in small groups but must be done on a computer with Microsoft Excel.

Gaming, cognition, and education – Part 6

Today is the last day of my week-long series related to gaming, cognition, and education. Remember that I am approaching this issue with the following question in mind: Why is it that kids who can’t sit still in class for five minutes can be mentally locked in for hours at home playing video games? If you’re new to this series, check out the previous posts:

My guide for this series is Dr. Jim Gee at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, author of What Video Games Have to Teach Us About Learning and Literacy. Today’s topics are discovery learning, learning transfer, learner as producer.

16. Gamers are discovery learners

Virtually every role-playing game requires participants to actively investigate the learning environment. As noted previously, this active learning aspect replicates real-life learning contexts and deepens overall knowledge and proficiency. Unlike many K-12 classrooms, video games rarely tell learners anything overtly. If games do, it’s usually planful and related to something small. All of the big discoveries – the conceptual breakthroughs – are left for the learner to discover in a structured, scaffolded way. Educators have long recognized the value of guided, inquiry-based learning methods, particularly for problem-solving, even if they have rarely implemented such methods on a large scale.

17. Gamers have many opportunities for learning transfer

One of the key outcomes that educators try to achieve with students is the transfer of learning from one context to another. In rapidly-changing societies such as ours, the ability to transfer and/or adapt existing knowledge and skills to new situations is an essential requirement for life success. Video games give participants many opportunities to practice already-acquired skills and to transfer their learning to new and different challenges. To succeed in video games, learners must not only exhibit near transfer (i.e., replication of prior learning to new, fairly similar, situations) but also far transfer (i.e., adaptation and modification of prior learning to substantively different contexts).

18. Gamers are producers and insiders, not just consumers

Like other modern technology tools (e.g., digital cameras and camcorders, podcasts, blogs, wikis), many video games allow learners to be producers of original content, not just consumers of pre-packaged material. Some of the most popular role-playing games (e.g., Second Life, EverQuest) have very sophisticated economies built upon user-created content. These video games have tools that allow for rich, individualized customization of the learning environment by participants. This stands in sharp contrast to the “one size fits all” instructional model that we see in many schools and classrooms, where teachers and textbooks are the insiders and “the learners are outsiders who must take what they are given as mere consumers” (Gee, 2003, p. 194). Control of the learning path, and perhaps the learning environment itself, can be powerfully motivating and engaging for learners.

Questions of the day

  • How do the concepts discussed above map on to K-12 education?
  • Are our K-12 classrooms set up . . . to facilitate discovery learning? to facilitate learning transfer, both near and far? to allow students to be producers and insiders, not just consumers?

Gaming and education resource 6

On Monday, I will wrap this all up and present a tool that can be used to help teachers and administrators discuss (and maybe reframe) their beliefs about gaming.

Gaming, cognition, and education – Part 5

Today is Day 5 of my week-long series related to gaming, cognition, and education. Remember that I am approaching this issue with the following question in mind: Why is it that kids who can’t sit still in class for five minutes can be mentally locked in for hours at home playing video games? If you’re new to this series, check out the previous posts:

My guide for this series is Dr. Jim Gee at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, author of What Video Games Have to Teach Us About Learning and Literacy. Today’s topics are subset of real domain, bottom-up basic skills, and just-in-time information.

13. Video games can create subsets of a domain

One of the most powerful features of video games is their ability to simulate worlds: past, present, or future; real or fictional. The multimodal capabilities of video games allow participants to be immersed in rich, deep learning contexts. For example, instead of reading about the Civil War, learners can take the role of soldier, general, medic, battlefield photographer, news correspondent, and the like. At the same time, however, dropping a new learner into a complex world can be disorienting and discouraging. Video games can create a simplified subset of the real domain, a starting place where participants can safely become oriented to the new world before being exposed to the entire learning environment. The value of this cannot be understated. Imagine if you were an English-speaking American who was about to be dropped into the middle of South Korea. Wouldn’t it be nice if you had a chance for some safe and structured, but authentic, practice first? Gee (2003) sums this up nicely:

Learning is not started in a separate place (e.g., a classroom or textbook) outside the domain in which the learning is going to operate. At the same time, the learner is not thrown into the “real” thing – the full game – and left to swim or drown. (p. 122)

14. Video games effectively facilitate “bottom up” learning of basic skills

In early stages of video games, learners are exposed to critical fundamental skills that allow them to gradually engage in more complex actions. As Gee (2003) notes,

early situations and problems [are designed] in a quite sophisticated way to lead to fruitful learning. When later the player is confronted by harder situations and problems, he or she has just the right basis on which to make fruitful guesses about what to do. (p. 135)

These basic skills are learned in a “bottom up” fashion – by playing the game, not through decontextualized exercises. Indeed, the structured learning environments of video games typically are designed so effectively that

by the time new players are aware of what are basic skills . . . the basic elements that are used repeatedly and combined and often concentrated in the earlier episodes . . . they have already mastered them. (Gee, 2003, p. 136)

15. Video games facilitate “just in time” learning

The artificial intelligences that reside in video games can be structured to respond in different ways to participant activity. Computer-mediated learning environments thus can be designed to provide information “just in time” or on demand. There is a great deal power associated with just-in-time learning or resource acquisition. For example, in manufacturing and industry, the concept of just-in-time manufacturing allows companies to reduce inventory and cut costs, making them more efficient and effective. Similarly, just-in-time learning environments allow participants to acquire skills or knowledge when they need them and not before. This facilitates greater concentration in earlier stages on things that are important (rather than extraneous or unneeded); allows for greater individualization and customization; makes learning more fluid; and leads to more active, engaged, motivated learners.

Questions of the day

  • How do the concepts discussed above map on to K-12 education?
  • Are our K-12 classrooms set up . . . to create safe but authentic subsets of real learning domains? to help students invisibly learn important skills from the “bottom up?” to allow students to gain information only when they need it (i.e., when it can best be understood and put into practice)?

Gaming and education resource 5

Here’s the schedule for the rest of the series:

  • Saturday: discovery learning, learning transfer, learner as producer
  • Monday: wrap-up

Gaming, cognition, and education – Part 4

Today is Day 4 of my week-long series related to gaming, cognition, and education. Remember that I am approaching this issue with the following question in mind: Why is it that kids who can’t sit still in class for five minutes can be mentally locked in for hours at home playing video games? If you’re new to this series, check out the previous posts:

My guide for this series is Dr. Jim Gee at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, author of What Video Games Have to Teach Us About Learning and Literacy. Today’s topics are multiple routes to success, contextualized meaning, and multimodal learning.

10. Video games allow learners to follow their own paths

There is more than one path to success in most role-playing video games. The path that some players follow, or the choices that they make, can be different than the paths and choices of others and yet still lead to the next level. Those paths may take longer, or some choices may be better, but eventually each player gets to the next stage. By playing and replaying levels repeatedly in ways that are not boring, players can revise and refine their paths to success. Video games allow for individualized learning toward common outcomes.

11. Gamers make meaning within embodied experiences

Because video games have the capacity to create complex, experiential simulations, participants’ learning is situated within learning environments that are fairly authentic, at least within the paradigm of the game framework. In other words, learning is not decontextualized, like a multiple choice item or writing prompt might be, but instead is rooted within the ongoing development of the skills, knowledge, and behaviors necessary to be successful in the game environment. For example, instead of reading about a blacksmith or watching a video about a blacksmith, gamers learn by actually being blacksmiths. Participants’ understanding is thus deeper because it is embodied within simulated (and often very real) experiences.

12. Learning in video games is multimodal

Most educators know about the theories of multiple intelligences and learning styles. The basic idea is that students learn differently and have different strengths. Teachers thus should try to facilitate multiple paths to learning and attempt to create different ways for students to show their mastery of content material. Most video games seamlessly integrate three of our five senses: sight, sound, and touch. If we ever figure out a way to implement Smell-o-vision or Odorama with our computers (click here to learn more about digital scent technology!), participants also may experience different smells while gaming. Because they can simultaneously utilize images, text, sound, interactions, abstract design, and so on (Gee, 2003, p. 210), video games are better able to simulate real-life experiences than can printed text, audio, or video. This makes learning more authentic, more engaging, and more compelling.

Questions of the day

  • How do the concepts discussed above map on to K-12 education?
  • Are our K-12 classrooms set up . . . to allow students to travel their individualized and unique learning paths? to create embodied, authentic learning experiences that are not decontextualized or overgeneralized? to facilitate multimodal learning as the dominant pedagogical model?

Gaming and education resource 4

Here’s the schedule for the rest of the series:

  • Friday: subset of real domain, bottom-up basic skills, just-in-time information
  • Saturday: discovery learning, learning transfer, learner as producer
  • Monday: wrap-up