Simple PBL

PBL (problem or project) based-learning doesn't have to be a huge formal assignment. It is more of a state-of-mind than anything else. I just wanted to share a small example of this that spontaneously happened during class last week.

One of the Recentius teams in Operation LAPIS, while working on a particular collaborative task, strayed a bit off topic -- discussing giraffes of all things. They came to the decision that they wanted to buy a giraffe to keep as a pet (ignoring the logistics of such a thing, we'll just let it slide for now) and subsequently asked me how much denarii (a type of Roman currency) they would need in order to buy a giraffe. I haven't ever read an ancient source that listed a specific price for a giraffe (although we know they were sold and displayed around the empire), and so that would pose a problem to arbitrarily assign a price.

According to Dio, Caesar brought a giraffe with him back from Alexandria

Instead of declaring "No, you cannot buy a giraffe.", I explained to them how I set the price for some of the gear (see the post linked above), and then asked them how they could estimate what a giraffe might have cost a Roman in the time period of our adventure.

In a few minutes of discussion and problem solving, they decided that if the average salary of a Roman soldier was 225 denarii, and then they estimated the salary of a current soldier of around $35,000, they could use that ratio of denarii to dollars in order to estimate the cost of a giraffe. After some research, they discovered that (apparently) a giraffe costs around $30,000 on the open market and so if they saved up about 200 denarii, they could have their own virtual giraffe pet. (I suppose I'll have to let them know what the upkeep is after the initial purchase.)

There it is right there -- problem-based learning, not as a huge elaborate thing, but as an approach to how and why you learn new information. While there are obvious problems with the accuracy of the price that they figured out, nevertheless we have the ability to foster this kind of inquisitive knowledge on a daily basis. We should routinely embrace, not squash, these opportunities to model authentic exploration.

On Narrative, Collection, and Re-engagement

Traditionally, this a tough time of year for a certain cross section of my Latin I classes.

Traditionally, this is the point where the complexity of the Latin advances to the point where those skating by, not really understanding what a direct object is, or why it has a different set of endings than a subject, are now underwater.

Traditionally, this is where the extra noun declension sheets, or verb conjugation sheets, run hot off the copier and into their hands in a frantic attempt to prepare for the midterm exam.

Traditionally, this is a point when a small portion, no matter what kind of interventions are in place, fall off completely and check out for the rest of the year.

Tradition isn’t tradition any longer.

One of the powerful affordances of a continuous narrative -- a narrative in which the students have an active role in shaping on a daily basis -- is the opportunity to re-engage at almost every moment. They aren’t reading about some figures whom they have no attachment to but rather they are playing their own characters, characters whom they have a genuine investment in and ones that they genuinely care about.

One of the powerful affordances of working in a permanent social collaborative unit is that on any given night their team is ready to help them get back into the fold and contribute in a meaningful way -- even if they haven’t contributed for the last two weeks. Rather than competing against their classmates, in its place there is a common sense of camaraderie and companionship on their journey of learning Latin and subsequently saving civilization.

One of the powerful affordance of the collection mechanic is that it provides a simple, effective, and straightforward way to focus on small bits of grammar at a time in a way where progress is marked visually not just in their lists but also in their acclimation of Latinity Points for taking part in the grind.

One of the powerful affordances of an easy re-entry is that the student who may have been struggling now has a reason and a way to get back into the game and, more importantly, a way to demonstrate learning and growth that’s real and tangible to them because they can see the immediate effects of their renewed participation and engagement.

One of the powerful affordances of tossing out the old traditions is that you get to rewrite the rules.

Consider the rules rewritten.

Practomimetic Learning in Full View

Presented without comment and unedited (other than removing student names.) This is a single night's worth of engagement from one of my Latin I sections utilizing Operation LAPIS as their only 'text'.

The background for this mission is the student teams-as-their-avatars are attempting to find a scroll hidden in the house of one of their first adversaries, Marcus Maecenas, a fictional grandson of the real Gaius Cilnius Maecenas. Each action that a character takes is discussed in a separate forum by the team before they make the action, and, obviously, the reactions are also discussed.

I apologize if you don't read Latin fluently. You'll have to trust me that the Latin, composed by students only a month in to the course, is pretty darn good.


(2.3.b) 

>Vīlla of Marcus Maecēnās, Pompeiī, 79 CE< 

tū in ātrium intrās. tū larārium dextrā vidēs. larārium est malīgnum. tū quoque lectum geniāle vidēs. ātrium est dēsertum. clāmōrem ē peristyliō in trīclīniō audīs.

Prompt: find the volūmen in vīllā of M. Maecēnās. You are free to explore any area of the house that you wish, but be on the lookout for Marcus and his guards.


Link to the CODEX for 2.3

embedded visual aid for the mission

Team 1: Agricola currit in cubiculo quietly.

TSTT Response: in cubiculō est lectus. tunica et toga in lectō iacent. cista quoque est in cubiculō. cista est clausa. clāvem nōn habēs. aliquid nitidum sub lectō cēlat.

Team 1: Agricola tunicam et togam capit. quoque, Agricola videt sub lecto.

TSTT Response: Agricola nōn potest ambō (both) tunicam et togam capere.

RESOLVE ACTION BEFORE PROCEEDING.

Team 1: Agricola chooses the tunic.

Demiurgic Edit: Agricola tunicam capit.

TSTT Response: Agricola tunicam capit et tunicam in saccō ponit.

Agricola must rest before taking another action.

Team 2: Recentia Octaviana intrat cubiculum et cistam capit.

TSTT Response: cista est gravis (quoque clausa). Octaviana cistam nōn potest capere. ubi est clavis?

Team 1: Agricola quiescit. quoque Agricola ambulat ad tablinum Marci

TSTT Response: Agricola ambulat ad tablīnum sed... ēheu! custōs stat extrā iānuam. Agricola revenit ad ātrium.

Team 3: Priscus ambulat ad tablīnum, et quaerit a key. priscus quaerit rīmam in murō.

TSTT Response: Priscus vīdet Agricolam et ad tablīnum nōn ambulat quod custōs est prope tablīnum.

Team 1: Agricola intrat alia cubiculum.

TSTT Response: in aliō cubiculō est lectus. stola in lectō iacent. aliquid nitidum sub lectō cēlat.

Team 3: Priscus ambulat ad culīam, et capit a sharp knife.

TSTT Response: mēnsa est in mediā culīnā. in mēnsā est cēna optima. ecce! coquus est in sellā. coquus tamen in sellā dormit. prope coquum est mappa ōrnāta. litterae “SP” in mappā sunt. nōn est culter (knife) in culīnā.

Team 4: Recentia Tulliana slowly runs to inanuam ligneus that lead to the cubliculum.

TSTT Response: Tulliāna est in cubiculō cum Agricolā. stola in lectō iacent. aliquid nitidum sub lectō.

Team 1: Agricola videt sub lecto.

TSTT Response: sub lectō est rōbīginōsus gladius!

Team 1: Agricola rōbīginōsum gladium capit.

TSTT Response: Agricola pōnit gladium rōbīginōsum in suō saccō.

Team 4: Recentia Tulliana videt sub lecto

TSTT Response: ēheu! est nihil sub lectō. stola est in lectō! fortasse Tulliana vult (wants) stolam capere?

Team 3: Priscus ambulat ad latrinam, et circumspectat gravis(important) objects.

Team 4: Tuliana capit stolam.

TSTT Response: Tulliāna stolam capit et stolam in saccō pōnit.

TSTT Response: Prīscus ambulat ad lātrīnam. in lātrīnā est multum stercoris. cavum est in mediā lātrīnā. aliquid nitidum prope cavum in lutō cēlat.

Team 4: Tulliana lente et quietly ambulat in desertum hallway ad culinam.

TSTT Response: Tulliāna est in culinā. mēnsa est in mediā culīnā. in mēnsā est cēna optima. ecce! coquus est in sellā. coquus tamen in sellā dormit. prope coquum est mappa ōrnāta. litterae “SP” in mappā sunt.

Team 1: Agricola ambulat lente ad custos in tablinum et inquit, "eheu! sum sordidus! sines ego intro?"

TSTT Response: custōs clāmat, "quid!!! iuvenis in villā? cūr ades? Marcus est iratus quod iuvenis eum vexāt (annoy)."

The custos grabs Agricola's newly found sword before he has a chance to react.

"et meum gladium habēs? fūr! (thief!)" inquit custōs.

Agricola is dragged across the house and thrown out the front door. Thankfully the guard was so distracted with the situation that the rest of the Recentiī went unnoticed and can continue their search for the scroll.

Team 3: Priscus capit nitidum object, et cleans it ad get a closer spectat.

TSTT Response: ecce! Prīscus invenit clāvem in lutō! Prīscus clāvem in saccō pōnit.

Team 2: Recentia Octaviana ambulat ad tablinum (now that the guards are distracted) et intro. Recentia Octavina quearit tablinum.

TSTT Response: The tablīnum is empty of people, but full of papers.

tū in tablīnum intrās. tū mēnsam vidēs in tablīnō. stat mēnsa māgna in tablīnō. in mēnsā est lumen. in mēnsā est tabella. in mēnsā est lapis. in mēnsā est volūmen.

in tablīnō quoque stat mēnsa parva.

TSTT Response: lectus geniālis est in ātriō. lectus est līgneus et imāginem Iūnōnis habet. litterae ‘SP’ in lectō sunt. strāgulum in lectō iacet. aliquid nitidum sub pulvīnō cēlat.

Team 5: Recentia Horatiana quaerit lectus genalis. she looks around in the lectus genalis and looks for the volumen.

Team 5: Recentia Horatiana quaerit sub pulvino

TSTT Response: Horātiāna invenit stolam fulvam sub pulvinō! Horātiāna stolam in saccō suō pōnit.

Team 4: Tulliana capit mappam et in sacco point

TSTT Response: ita vero! Tulliana mappam capit!

Team 3: Priscus ambulat ad cubiculo et aperit cistam clāve (priscus opens chest with key)

TSTT Response: ecce! Prīscus in cistā togam candidam et pallium fulvum invenit! Priscus eōs (them) in suō saccō pōnit.

TSTT Response: The custos turns around when he hears something in viā. This gives Agricola the opportunity to slip back into the vīlla unnoticed.

Team 1: Agricola currit in villa et latet.

Team 2: Recentia Octaviana capit volumen et lapidem

TSTT Response: Recentia Octaviana legit volumen: (link to the volumen). lapidem parvum est modo saxum.

estne volumen verum (true)?

Team 3: Priscus capit togam candidam et pallium fulvum.

Team 5: Recentia Horatiana quaerit lararium

TSTT Response: larārium Marcī est malīgnum et antīquum. statua in larariō est frācta. statua lapidem in manū tenet. statua gladium in aliā manū tenet.

Team 1: Agricola ad ceterus cubiculum ambulat.

TSTT Response: est nihil in certerīs cubiculīs.

Team 1: Agricola ad peristylum currit.

TSTT Response: As Agricola approaches the peristylum, he hears a large commotion coming from tricinlium. Marcus' cena is starting to break up. tempus fugit! Agricola currit ad tablinum cum ceterīs Recentiīs.

Team 4: Tulliana ego aperit ianuam to the tablinium et intrat

Team 2: Recentia Octaviana inquit "volumen est non verum."

Team 5: Recentia Horatiana quaerit rimam in muro

TSTT Response: Recentia Horatiana alium (another) volumen in murō invenit! est volumen verum! (link to the scroll)

omnēs Recentiī currunt ē villā ad Sextum.

Latinity Points (XP) as a Replacement for Grades, Part 4

In the previous three parts of this exercise, I laid out the criteria required in order to evaluate without grading, explained how Latinity Points are utilized as a part of Operation LAPIS, and then provided a full discussion and response from a group of three students. In this final part my aim is to elaborate on what the end of that process looks like, specifically when it comes time to assign a traditional grade in a very non-traditional classroom. As a reminder from the first post, the following were the four criteria that I argued had to be a part of this system.

1. Continuous embedded formative assessment of progress
2. A record system with meaningful feedback towards meeting learning objectives
3. A record of all student work
4. Student agency in the evaluation process

1) Continuous embedded formative assessment: Every component of Operation LAPIS is designed with this at the core. There are no superfluous mechanics or deliberately gamified elements for cheap extrinsic motivation. Every episode requires the students-as-operatives not only to read and comprehend Latin but also to apply relevant cultural and historical information through both guided and independent research. Every episode also requires them to collaborate with their teammates to roleplay their character’s actions through a particular world-view. As built in differentiation, students can be challenged to build their responses in original Latin composition as well -- which many of them attempt at least in some small part. Simply put, every element requires them to actively draw on skills they’ve gained while applying new skills and knowledge.

2) A record system with meaningful feedback: All of their LPs are awarded through a shared (between myself and the student) document known as the Operative Dossier. Once we start to get into a grove at the start of the year, the students understand that an LP award in the 260s or higher is on the right track, while something around 200s means that more work is needed. Included in each dossier is a ‘Transmission from Mission Control’ which can provide direct feedback in a way that doesn’t break from the immersion of the ‘students-as-operatives’. Since all operatives have access to the rubric, specific attention can be drawn to parts of their contributions that did not meet expectations.

3) A record of all student work: This is the easy part, thanks to Google Docs and Edmodo as the platform of choice for collaboration and discussion. All student work in Google Docs is shared between myself and the student. At any point, through the commenting feature in Google Docs, I’m able to provide specific and detailed feedback. Since LPs are deliberately not a masked grading system, operatives can choose to respond to the feedback, fix errors, and gain more LPs for revising their work.

All team discussion happens in secure sub-groups on the Edmodo platform. If there is every a question from a parent (or from a student), it takes almost no time to call up a record of the student’s contributions to reflect on how they are (or aren’t) meeting the criteria spelled out on the rubric. This record of work is also important as teams will often recall information from the past immersions as being useful for the current -- scrolling down their team discussions quickly gives them access to that material in a way that a test or quiz shoved into a binder, or the nebulous black hole known as a backpack, simply cannot.

Now for the fun part.

4) Student agency in the evaluation process: When it comes time to report grades at the prescribed four times per year, I ask all of my students to first submit a self-reflection piece. I ask them to evaluate their strengths, their weaknesses, mention one or two episodes that they felt they did a fantastic job contributing to, and also to mention one or two episodes where they think they could have provided more to the team discussion. In addition, we take a look at the current LP totals and I give them an intentionally wide range of values for letter grades (intentional overlap, as well). Ideally, I’d sit down with each student individually and have a face-to-face discussion, but with 25+ students in each classroom, logistically it would be too difficult to accomplish as a part of a standard high school schedule. Instead I require the students to email me their response, which, in of itself, hits on some of the secondary learning objectives of written communication, etc. At the end of their self-reflection, they assign themselves a grade which they think they are deserving of. The wonderful thing about this endeavor is that almost always they hold themselves to tougher standards than I and, in my reply, I get to “talk them up” a bit.

Do I get the occasional student that says, “Sweet? I get to assign myself a grade? I get an A!”? Absolutely. However, with the continuous embedded formative assessment, feedback through carefully constructed mechanic, and an accessible record system, it then because a teachable moment when they are asked to demonstrate in what ways they met the learning objectives to warrant that ‘A’.

Latinity Points (XP) as a Replacement for Grades, part 2

Continued from part 1...

Why Latinity Points as an experience point (XP) system? For those unfamiliar with what experience points are, a quick trip to Wikipedia yields:

An experience point (often abbreviated to Exp or XP) is a unit of measurement used in many role-playing games (RPGs) and role-playing video games to quantify a player character's progression through the game. Experience points are generally awarded for the completion of quests, overcoming obstacles and opponents, and for successful role-playing.

‘Quantify progression’ are the vital words of that definition. Experience points are a visual representation of progression towards an objective. In the classroom, the objective should be mastering the learning objectives for that course. In Operation LAPIS, Latinity Points (LPs) serve to quantify an operative’s progression towards the overarching learning objectives; read, think, act, write, and speak like a Roman.

What Latinity Points are not:

Before I go too much further, I’d like to share some thoughts on how I think XP systems are misused and abused in the classroom. XP should not be window dressing for standard grading mechanisms. If all you are doing is announcing that a particular assignment is worth 100 XP, and receiving 90 XP on the assignment is an A, then you are simply putting lipstick on a pig. That’s cheap gamification and you’ll quickly find that the novelty wears off. If you set a cap for the marking period of, say, 10,000 XP and then convert experience point totals to a grade with a formula, you’ll discover the same problem. The end result becomes amassing XP for the sake of the letter grade at the end, rather than progression towards the learning objectives. The end result becomes finding the path of least resistance in order to achieve that goal -- the same problem plaguing us with current traditional grading systems. Our students do not want to take risks, and will not take risks, because they are punished for doing so. An XP system grafted onto a standard grading scheme does not resolve that problem.

What Latinity Points are:

LPs are quantitative representations of a student's progression through the course. Like rewards for completion of quests in a game, they can be awarded for any task inside of the operation: team collaboration, attunement challenges, successful completion of elements in the collection mechanic, etc. Since all activities in Operation LAPIS, like any good game, are continuous embedded formative assessments definitively tied to learning objectives, the LPs gained from any one activity serve to mark overall advancement.

LPs are separated from a grade value; the better you do a task, the more Latinity Points you receive. They are capped per activity but the same holds true in almost all games. You can only grind so many points of out slaying level 5 goblins before you need to move on to bigger challenges. This encourages students to take risks they wouldn’t otherwise take since there is no potential for “loss” of points.

LPs are paired with meaningful feedback rather than numbers divorced from the activity. In the example of team collaboration in immersion episodes, the LPs awarded are tied to a standards-based rubric. In addition, the affordances of a Google spreadsheet as an ‘Operative Dossier’ allows for easy personalized feedback in the form of in-cell comments to help shape better contributions from the student in future episodes.

LPs are the beginning of the conversation with a student when it comes time to report a marking period grade. Because they are tied to progression, LPs (and XP systems in general) serve a powerful function to allow the student to tell the narrative of their learning for that particular period in a way that traditional grading systems just don’t allow because of the inherent connotations that grades hold. Instead, the student becomes an agent of true self-assessment and, for many, a much harder critic than I would have been.

In the next part, I’ll break down examples of how and why I award LPs and what those mean for the overall picture of evaluating student learning.

Latinity Points (XP) as a Replacement for Grades, part 1

For many of us it is time for that ritual again -- namely, posting quarterly grades for our students. However, because of this fact it is also a good time to reflect on grading practices and just who those grades are for. Since we’ve opened up the free two mission trial of Operation LAPIS, it is also a good time to explore alternatives to the traditional grading system; Latinity Points (XP as a measure of advancement towards learning objectives.) Bear with me because this will be spread out over a few posts.

Grading, as it is currently conceived, is nothing more than a purely extrinsic motivator. In order to move forward we, as educators, have to stop kidding ourselves that “grading” student work is about providing feedback. We’d like it to be about the feedback but it isn’t. It’s about that mark at the top, whether it be a number or a letter. When you hand back a quiz, a paper, or any other assignment, take a look at your students’ reactions and behavior. I’d wager it follows the same pattern each time:

1. Student goes straight for the number or letter, skipping any corrections or written feedback.
2. Student looks to friend, neighbor, or person sitting near them and asks, “What’d you get?”

If that is what you see then grading is not about the feedback. It is about the extrinsic reward for completing a particular task to your specifications. It is about instant gratification, regardless of how that outcome was achieved. It is also about the competition with peers. It’s why, a week prior to grades closing, your students inevitably ask the question, “What can I do for extra credit?” or immediately following the student receiving the report card, “Why did you give me a B?” It’s not about the learning and it hasn’t been for a long time.

But wait -- many educators will be quick to stop me in my tracks and ask, “How do you provide evidence and justification for assigning grades if you aren’t ‘grading’?” A valid question, sure, because of the perceived value that “accountability” holds in the culture of school -- as if “accountability” can exist only as numbers in a gradebook. If not grades, then how can you evaluate a student’s progress towards learning objectives? For starters, I’m working with the students day in and day out. I’m observing their progress in and out of the classroom. But if my professional judgement isn't enough, I’ll argue that four criteria need to be met:

1. Continuous embedded formative assessment of progress
2. A record system with meaningful feedback towards meeting learning objectives
3. A record of all student work
4. Student agency in the evaluation process

In the next installment, I’ll discuss how the Latinity Point mechanic of Operation LAPIS hits all four of those criteria to provide an alternative to standard grades.

More on Badges

Having returned from THATCamp Games hosted at the University of Maryland this past weekend, I wanted to open the "Badges Done Right" discussion to a wider audience after a very productive session. You can view the notes from the session here at this link: Google Docs: Badges Done Right

Here's the session as I proposed it for THATCamp Games:

I’d like to propose a session, or at least a conversation, on the topic of badges and achievements in education. It seems to me that many of the “trend-settters” of gamification are using badges in a very unfortunate way: badges as simple extrinsic motivators that have very little value for creating intrinsic motivation. For example, take a look at the ready-made badges provided by one course-management company.

From my point of view, none of those badges is indicative of the student achieving meaningful progress towards the course objectives. They aren’t tied to any real learning activities and at a glance tell me nothing about the student other than that s/he might have not missed a class or that she “worked hard.” However, the kind of small sample shown here is generally what I see whenever I look around at the badge and achievement systems which are being grafted onto pre-existing learning-management-systems by the major players in the education industry.

Before we embrace badges in education, I’d like us to discuss ways we might be able to move past badges-as-21C-gold-stars and to consider how we might craft meaningful badge systems that are a true record of accomplishments towards the learning objectives for the particular course, curriculum, or program.

There seemed to be two different conversations happening: badges on the macro-level as credentials across disciplines or institutions and badges on the micro-level in the individual classroom as records. Naturally I'm more interested in the latter discussion but both are worthwhile ones to have. So what are your thoughts? Are we able to effectively remove the "gold star" nature of badges and instead use them to accurately represent accomplishing learning objectives in a way that will motivate our students intrinsically rather than extrinsically? 

The Computer as a Barrier

We finally got the school year underway this past week after a delayed start due to Hurricane Irene ravaging New England. Last year at this time I was just embarking on an amazing journey known as Operation LAPIS in one of my Latin I sections and I spent a great deal of time in that first week posting my thoughts here (you can find the links on the right.) With the new year starting, and the plan to go “all in” with practomimetic learning across all of my Latin courses (both Latin Is and a Latin II), I was eager and excited to get the year going.

Unfortunately for me, I found out on the first day back that the level of tech integration that I had last year was actually going to be worse this year. Our building (one of many on a campus that serves 2500+ high school students) traded a single mobile laptop cart of 30 computers for a stationary lab of 26 desktops -- only 23 of which were actually working on day one. Our building houses almost all of the world language classes and about half of the science classrooms in addition to special education and a sprinkling of history classes. In all, there are between thirty and forty classrooms in the building alone and yes, you read that correctly, one physical lab of 26 desktop computers is what is available to those classes. In 2011.

While I don’t want to spend time talking about the logistics of that set up, and the need for a real push for better access in our school, I do want to spend a little bit of time talking about the new lab and why it is actually a terrible space for learning to occur.

In my classroom last year, with the mobile laptop cart, I was able to group the students into their year-long teams for LAPIS on day 2. They had their laptops in front of them and they were sitting face to face with their teammates, interacting in both real space and the virtual one. The first night last year, and the first night this year, were identical: the operatives rushed home to create their Google accounts, register with the TSTT and post welcome messages to their new teammates in their team forum.

Here’s what I wrote about the class when they came in for day two:

I saw the non-LAPIS class first and it was a fairly standard experience: they file in and sit in silence before the class starts, it is still a struggle to get them to open up to myself, to their classmates, to volunteer, to answer questions or contribute. Nothing new or nothing surprising there. Usually by the third week they start to come around and by the end of September we’re really in full stride with the atmosphere that carries through the rest of the year. The LAPIS class, on the other hand, which came in directly after the non-LAPIS was an entirely different story. They came in chatting to one another and immediately started talking with their teammates. The dynamics for the rest of the class stayed at that elevated level. While doing activities, a far greater number of hands shot up to volunteer, they more readily engaged in discussion back and forth about topics. They responded to comments made by fellow classmates. They more actively engaged with me. To say there was a stark difference between the two classes after just one day would be a gross understatement. There is absolutely no question in my mind that this came as a direct result of the relationships that they began to forge online the night before in the Team Forums.

This year, during the whole first week, the new recruits in Operation LAPIS couldn’t remember who was on their team, nor pick them out of a crowd. In fact, there was almost no socializing among the students. They looked very much students in the first week of a traditional classroom setting. I might even wager to say that they were even worse. How could the same process (creating accounts, registering, posting, etc) produce such different results?

Turns out I was actually a little bit wrong in my analysis then. It wasn’t only the fact that they were communicating in their team forums the night before -- although, it certainly had a big impact. Comparing notes from last year to this year I’ve found out that there’s another variable that has a huge impact; the traditional computer lab.

The new computer lab is laid out in, what I would consider, a terrible fashion for any kind of community learning or even learning in general. There are computers along the back wall (the student backs are turned around from the IWB in the front of the room), and on the sides there are a couple short rows of 2-3 computers, face to face. This means that some of those students, too, are facing away from the visuals on the IWB. Because the towers are on the tables, along with the computer monitors, the students cannot physically see the students sitting across from them, making communication across the table virtually impossible. There are also only 26 stations -- most of our classes are now getting dangerously close to 30 (both of my Latin I sections are now at 28).

The traditional computer lab and the computers in it, in this case, is actually a barrier to the kinds of social and collaborative learning that we’re hoping to foster with our style of game-based learning. Heck, the kinds of learning any classroom should be trying to foster. Even the returning Senior Operatives (my Latin II class) already mentioned that they really dislike the lab and want to return to our old classroom with the laptops. The computer lab is a relic of the past; something that has no place in a modern educational setting. With as many different kinds of internet enabled devices out there, and the prevalence of wireless infrastructures in other parts of the “real world”, any place, any where, can become a computer “lab”. The computer shouldn’t be the focus, the main attraction, like it is in the traditional lab. The device should just be one of many tools at the learner’s disposal.

Reflections, Part 2

Quality, and meaningful, feedback is something that is paramount to the success of Operation LAPIS and of practomimetic learning in general. However, I noticed a very interesting trend in how each of the two sections felt about the feedback that they received. Their responses in the end of the year surveys couldn't be any more different. On the one hand, the original LAPIS group felt that the feedback given to them was exceptional, especially when it came to interaction at night in the team discussion forums. On the other hand, the partial year class felt that the feedback they received was significantly insufficient.

Obviously, I was quite puzzled (and a bit taken aback) by the comments of the newer group -- especially since I read through that batch first. However, reading the comments from the original group made me realize something very important about this whole process, especially the feedback portion.

For the original group, all they've known throughout the entire year were the interactions in their team forums between them and myself, comments left in their dossiers, and feedback left on the occasional attunement challenges. Also, they recognized the value in the conversations that I had with their teams in person each class as they were working on any given task.

However, for the newer group, they began the year in a traditional Latin class, with traditional instruction -- including frequent quizzes and tests. They've also spent the year in their other core classes, receiving similar instructional methods. For almost every student not involved in a practomimetic course, their idea of "feedback" is a letter at the top of the page. When those letters disappeared for the newer group, they believed that they stopped receiving feedback altogether. The only "feedback" the ever receive, anywhere, is a letter on the top of the page. Because of how used to the traditional system they had become, they were unable to make the connection that not only were they receiving feedback, they were receiving feedback in a substantially more meaningful way.

So why did that happen? How come they weren't able to see the value in the shift of how I was interacting with them nightly?

The answer, I think, falls back to the narrative. One of the sections that I skipped in order to fit into the condensed schedule was a whole series of missions that took place in Britain. Included in those missions is a fantastically constructed series of episodes that force them to think about a lot of the metacognitive issues at play with practomimetic learning and it's connection with Plato's Allegory of the Cave. When the original class went through these exercises, it was one of the most rewarding consecutive days of teaching in my career. The self-discovery about their own learning and school in general was incredible to watch unfold as they put all the pieces together.

The rift between the two sections in terms of their perception of how feedback was handled was precisely because the newer group just wasn't exposed to the metacognitive process that the original group went through. Again, this misstep on my part fortunately exposed something incredible about Sinistrus' strange farm: that part of the narrative, like seemingly everything before and after, is vital to the complete package. Practomimetic learning is as much about learning how to learn as it is about the content area itself.