Tag Archives: Handheld Learning 2007

Kids, Technology, Brands…(Part 3 – Marc Presky on Why kids are no longer ‘little us’s)

Talk 3: Marc Prensky on “Why kids are no longer ‘little us’s”

…paraphrasing from lots of notes unless stated…

“Email is for old people” (â€“ A headline in The Chronicle of Higher Education)

We haven’t seen much in our lives. Sure there’s been man on the moon but before, things moved pretty slow overall. Now technology makes things move fast—and they’re about to get even faster. Many of the things we use today didn’t exist 5 years ago; and probably won’t exist in 5 years time. Many of us also have jobs that didn’t exist five years ago. Who knows what we’ll be doing 10 years from today.

How can we (teachers) learn all this stuff?

But young people only know the fast stuff and are “born to the idea of rapid change” (Nicola Griffith in Slow River (1995)) The stuff that feels threatening and confusing to us is empowering to “digital natives” (PDF). We’ve been teaching kids to solve problems with the tools we had. Now the problems are changing. We need new tools for these new problems.

Teachers need to see their jobs as helping students invent new tools.

New tools will be digital and they will be invented on the devices kids have. When you have 1 computer for every 3-4 students, it’s just not enough to give them the opportunities they need.

“We grow up interacting through computers and through our cell phones and that’s how we learn.” (a graduate student)

Old teaching styles (lectures) are no good for today’s young people. Why shouldn’t they be taught in new ways [blogs, mobile, social networks, peer learning, self-directed discovery, experimentation etc.].

In 5-10 years our society will be cashless, phones will have super computing power (will predict the weather?!), implanted/wearble real-time environments…within 30 years, technology will be a billion time more powerful. We don’t know what that means.

Deciding to put a computer here and there in a classroom is missing the point. How will we deal with the massive change that’s coming?

“You look at technology as a tool, we look at it as a foundation that’s integrated into what we do” (a student)

Who are these kids anyhow? The one certainty is that they are not little “us”s any more. What worked for us will not help them.

“Today’s learners are not the learners our system and teachers were designed and trained to teach.” Why are they like this? [Goes on to display statistics showing the number of hours spent by the average (?) young person playing video games, watching TV, texting, IM-ing. Reading (a paper book) barely figures on the list.]

“[Young people] are not just using technology differently today, but are approaching their life and their daily activities differently because of the technology.” (–Net Day “Speak-up Day” Summary )

Welcome to the emerging online life of the digital native: the daily universals that make up the life and [personal, social and professional] development of today’s kids: Communicating (IM, chat) , Sharing (Blogs, MySpace), Buying & Selling (ebay, craigslist), Exchanging (peer-to-peer), Learning (Wikipedia, You Tube, search), Meeting (Second Life) etc. [Partial list only, the entire list really makes you think...]

This isn’t new stuff. We had to do and learn this stuff too but kids do all this digitally. The largest differentiator is the social networking as a component of much of this.

Our job is (should be) to help them make this happen as part of their education. We have to be part of the solution to the digital divide. Why are so many kids bored with school? They have to power-down at school compared to life outside of school. Their passion is the future but we are teaching them the past.

They are bored because—we’re not teaching them the right stuff.

Why not teach programming, multi-language texting, simulation… We need to teach 21st Century skills.

They are bored because—we’re not teaching them the right way.

(Metaphor) Kids used to grow up in the dark. Teachers (adults) were the ones who showed them the light. Now kids grow up in the light….this changes everything. They are already learning—[on their own, their own way, their own tools, their own groups and networks.] School teaches legacy stuff and provides credentials. “After school” is the “future learning”—the stuff they need to know. We are teaching them face to face, slowly, top down, linear, one size fits all when they want to learn online, faster, bottom-up, multi-threaded and through discovery.

The old paradigm: bored kids being taught. The new paradigm is engaged kids teaching themselves (with guidance.)

Technology adoption has several stages: hiding, panic, acceptance, comfort and finally power. Kids know that technology provides power, especially because today’s technology is programmable. [They can change it, adapt it, personalize it..]

Why is programming important? We do it every day….at home (TV, thermostat), work (problem solving), school, government (legislation), tools (games, blogs.) The curriculum includes programming as well: maths, science, languages (dictionaries), english (research, analysis) etc.

“Do we know how to help our kids learn to program in more and more sophisticated ways? What if we don’t….”

[Many thanks to Mark Prensky for sending me a copy of his presentation to use as backup to my notes. This presentation is well worth seeing if you ever have the opportunity. ]

Kids, Technology, Brands…(Part 2- Gary Pope on the interaction of preschoolers with branded/licensed products.)

Talk 2: Gary Pope from Kids Industries spoke about the interaction of preschoolers with branded/licensed products.

Once again…lots of paraphrasing but the original presentation is available for download on the Kids Industries web site.

What games did you play as a child? What games do kids play today?

[Interesting that the audience replied with actual games like hide and seek, building stuff, playing 'house'/'adventure', puzzles, as what they used to do but the names of brands (Nintendo, Barbie, Playstation etc.) as what kids do now.]

But ignoring the brand names for a moment, do kids still play other games? Yes they do—just maybe in a different way [with technology and brands as enablers or point of inspiration.]

Why are children different from adults?

The Developmental Superhighway. [Picture of a highway with 4 cars—one social, emotional, physical, cognitive.] It’s a way for us to remember why we’re all different. The highway is analogous with the development of a human being. Each child has four lanes on his/her highway. Each lane represents one of the four key developmental aspects that we should all be considering whenever we make product for children. When we are born the cars in each of the development lanes race off…but some move more quickly that others. Some of us become more social and emotional, or cognitive. This affects life experiences. And this is why we’re all different because we each encounter different things and learn how to deal with them at different stages.

As they grow, kids explore (try out…) different personalities…then eventually, settle on the one that feels most like them. Their development also affects the way they perceive the world around them. [Goes on to give a variety of examples of things that kids will see differently than adults. The ability to decipher (or not) an abstract representation of a very common thing (a face), an experiment to assess kids' perception of volumes of liquid in a container (flip the container over and the water rises since the bottom of the bottle is wider than the top...is there still the same amount of water in the bottle?), the ability/inability to perceive differences in colour based on contrast or luminance levels etc.]

Products designed for children should aim for the zone of Proximal Development (the space between what they ‘can do’ and can’t do’. The area just above their developmental age.)

“The child’s Needstate is for product and service offerings which enables exploration at the very boundaries of a child’s abilities–cognitive, social, emotional and physical”.

Products that connect with kids address a common need—power. “Products that connect with children [do so] because they resonate so very deeply with the emerging adult human being.” Kids are always being told what to do. A very natural need…to leverage what power they do have. Effective socialization, development of peer groups (second only to family) are fundamental to success in life.

“The Need is for product and service offerings that enable the children to socialise effectively in the 21st Century living.” [Technology is a huge enabler in this respect—gives kids power to create and negotiate relationships, maintain peer groups, assert creativity etc.]

“In the new experience economy, companies must realise that they make memories, not goods” (Joseph Pine, 1998.) “The reason for the existence of a product is to offer an experience. Children (and adults) only truly learn through experience. Children need to make meaning to connect. Compelling products allow children to connect with it on their terms. “This is a complex process reinforced by the ability of a product to retain attention, allow the child to become engaged and create memories.

Children identify with branded characters in 4 ways.

Reflective: the character is like them.
Emulatory: they aspire to be the character.
Nurturing: they want to take care of the character.
Disidentification: they identify with darker elements and begin to make sense of what this means for them.

And what is Play?

An end to itself.
Freely chosen
Pleasurable
Non-literal (make believe is always present in some way)
Actively engaged – physically and psychologically

Is play with branded toys bad for children?

What makes a character ‘traditional’ vs ‘licensed’ [Is it how it looks? Primitive vs high design/production values? Where does culture enter in? Can a traditional looking thing in one culture look more commercial in another?]

Naysayers say branded toys are not creative, bring advertising into the home, compel kids to imitate rather than imagine, don’t engage parent. Is this really true? Branded toys are often the point of inspiration. Bring fully formed characters into the child’s play but from there…play takes over. Barbie, Star Wars and Sponge Bob can co-exist in a storyline that has nothing to do with the brand but is enhanced by favourite characters and scenarios.

“There is no such thing as Traditional or Licensed toys as far as children are concerned. There are only good toys and bad toys.”

Goes on to discuss the different types of play: solitary, socio-dramatic, parallel, associate, cooperative, constructive, dramatic and character play. Also provides a charming photo of his daughter’s favourite pocket-toys—all licensed characters—taken on a family trip to the London Eye. The toys were carefully arranged within the observation capsule for an inspiring view of London and participated in the family outing. Would this experience created by a small child deciding to take her ‘friends’ along on a family outing have been any more or less meaningful had these been ‘no-name’ characters or toys?

It’s also worth noting—for those who find this talk a bit too marketing focused that Gary also appealed to brand owners to stop packaging these toys in such an un-sustainable manner. We could easily berate the tech/electronics industry in the same manner for all the overpackaged dongles, flash drives and USB connectors.

[I tend to agree with Gary's perception of licensed and overtly branded toys. As an adult, I have a variety of branded characters on my desk—accumulated over the years and carried around the world every time we moved. Some of these toys attracted me because of the design but the fact that many of them have stories behind them have great appeal and are integral to my affection for them. From a kids' marketing point of view, there is still the huge issue of the pressure created by advertising for parents to buy these toys. There also seems to be a bit too much personal identity wrapped up in having 'cool stuff' whether this is a branded toy, or an iPod. I don't think however that this is totally limited to kids. I would suspect that adult, early-adopters of technologies, brands and pop culture (the three are pretty much intertwingled at this point) suffer from the same pressures at times. Still, should we be exposing youngsters to this pressure.

Many thanks to Gary from Kids Industries for sending me a copy of his presentation to use as backup to my notes.]

Kids, Technology, Brands…(Part 1 – Dr. Norman Lewis on Digital Kids and Disruption)

Talk 1: Dr. Norman Lewis (ex Director of Technology Research, Orange UK—now at Wireless Grids) on “Digital Kids and Disruption”.

Paraphrased from my lengthy notes…

An important aspect in the process of the internationalization of digital technology into childhood is tension between the agenda of adults and those of young people.

Kids spend more time in the presence of adults than ever before, as a result, there is no space ‘for kids. Parents used to say to kids “get out of the house, play, come back at dinner”, now kids are driven around, attend supervised sports, after school classes, ‘safe’ activities etc. This new intergenerational dynamic is the key to understanding why digital technology is so attractive to young people

Kids see technology as entertainment, diversion, relief from boredom—parents want it to be educational.

Parents see technology as a way of minimizing risk (of the outside world)—kids see it as freedom from constant supervision. The changing character of childhood particularly the shift from outdoor play to indoor play mean children want digital apps that are under their control, help them pass time, provide entertainment, connect with peers and evade supervision.

It’s not the tech/gadgets that attract the kids it’s the desire to break out of that space and experiment.

Therefore if not sensitive to this motivation—products will get it wrong

Self-expression becomes a key element of how they interact with the world, a mechanism to develop identity and reputation or develop a peer culture. Studies show that kids may have 300 ‘friends’ on MySpace, Bebo etc. but often only have 6 IM friends. These friends often live on same street, go to the same school—are ‘real’ friends. The most important thing about blogging (mySpace, Bebo etc.)—for kids—is peer acknowledgement (creativity and sharing). Teenage girl are the biggest blogging demographic by far.

For kids, moderating their social status depends on their ability to personalize these new technologies within a peer context.

Old approach to disseminating personal ‘content’: Top down, information is broadcast to friends and community. New approach: you are in the middle (of a big organic circle) surrounded by your ‘people’, devices, content—all this creates a personal, organically shaped and overlapping network that defines who you are. You determine what content, what means of communication etc—you decide. The communication of content becomes less significant than the network of communication

When exchanging pictures, talking about a show it’s not the content that’s important, it’s the creation of a network/relationship using the content. Service providers shouldn’t be thinking “how can I make a deal with ‘x’ brand owner to put on this content on my network” instead “how can I enable the audience to consume this content amongst friends which will in turn drive usage of my network”.

Myth: children are naturally good with tech. Why is this untrue? Maybe they simply have a less structured approach to discovery, less baggage. This tech is there, all around them so why not use it, try it, play—it becomes part of the means through which they exist in the world, through which they appropriate and internalize the world. No distinction between tech and ‘non-tech’—it’s just life.

What will they need when they grow up? Will they put up with the bad UIs? Will they push the boundaries [think out of the boxâ€¦naturally because it's a different box that they conceptualize]. We do them a disservice when we flatter them (call them ‘digital natives’)—we should use this opportunity to tempt them to investigate the technology, by flattering them we are letting them (and us, and everyone) off the hook from innovating.

Went on to talk about an ambitious project while he was at Orange to port Scratch to mobile devices as an authoring environment. Would allow kids to make content, share it, adapt what their friends made, and share it again. If we enable this, the younger generation would/could do exciting stuff.

Stephanie Rieger

Beyond the mobile web