Stanford Children's Software Conversation Transcripts
The following unedited messages were collected following the Stanford Conversation on Children's Software, which took place on January 22, 1998 in the Stanford University School of Education, and were used to create the article that appeared in the March/April issue of CSR on page 3.
Respondents are listed in the order they submitted their comments. As you scroll down in this document, you'll find comments from the following people.
- Margo Nanny
- Craig Southard
- Joyce Hakansson
- Ann McCormick
- Jan Half
- Frona Kahn
- Thomas G. Wicks, III
- Ann Bubnick
- Ted M. Kahn
Margo Nanny,Senior Designer, Interactive Learning Design--What struck me was that we invited 48 high powered industry people figuring that about 30 would make it. But 46 replied positively and even with them only 3 had last minute things come up. It was obvious that people were ripe for a conversation.
Much of the motivation for the meeting came from conversations a few of us had with our associates about the state of the industry. It seemed that the consolidations of companies, the huge problems of distribution and lack of shelf space, along with reduced sales of CD's in part due to a national movement towards internet made for difficult times for everyone in the industry. Smaller companies whose main focus was on quality content could no longer afford to do the conceptual development and early concept testing necessary to create leading edge content products. If you didn't have a licensed character and Disney quality animation you were out of the game. Even Broderbund admitted in the Marin IJ that they'd never do an original Carmen Sandiego product in today's market. It seems the big publishers feel they have to make drill products for each grade level to sell to the nervous parents, or they're out of the business.
For me I was wondering what all those people who had spent their last 10-15 years in the industry focused on content were thinking, and what they were thinking about the next 10-15 years. Do we all just give up and do something else? Do we settle for developing more of the same kinds of products which the industry has shown will sell?
I think David Dwyer said it best. "We've all been at this for 10-15 years and our impact has been totally underwhelming." For me it was best said in an email that I received in a dream. "So much to do, no where to do it." (How do you credit a quote across the internet in a dream...from a real person who never actually said it??)
What was most interesting to me about the meeting was to discover how many of these people were also feeling disturbed by this situation and from the conversations people agreed what had to change to change it. Unfortunately those changes require a major movement in this country.In order for parents to purchase more interesting products they have to value the skills that such products enhance. Thus they must realize that basic skills alone will not prepare their kids for the next century and in fact basic skills products are not the best way to use the technology.
Changing the way parents think is a big project. Teachers must also be convinced. This too is a big project since teachers are pressured more than ever to teach to State mandated tests. But even for teachers who are convinced about more creative ways to use technology, the structure of the schools doesn't make it easy to use project oriented software. Thus schools would have to change. That's a big project as well. It was quite encouraging however in one conversation where people were actually interested in trying to create a movement and to spend several years getting it together, deciding on and agreeing on ideas and strategies, finding ways to create model learning environments, getting the research done to show that these techniques work to produce more capable kids and higher test scores, writing books, getting our names on the expert lists for the press, and basically doing a market launch of these new ideas for education in the 21st century. It really was inspiring. Now...who will lead the movement? This is still a question. But it was obvious that much the talent to pull off such a thing was sitting right there in the room.
So what did I learn....The problem is real, not just in my imagination. That if I wanted to try to do something about it, there's much support out there. That if we want the next stretch of life to have an impact on education and technology we better think big and be ready to work hard for it. That getting a room full of bright people together and giving them control over the agenda is a great way to find out what people think is important about their work.
On the more practical design level, it was Henry Olds that brought us back to earth with his session "Designing on your hands and knees." This one reminded me once more that we need to be down on the floor with the kids to design this stuff. That no matter what the time line and budget constraints are, we can't cut the kids out of the process. The more we involve kids in creating products the better the products will be.
Craig Southard, Executive Producer, Selavy Studios -- Although I was impressed with the collected of wisdom and talent of the participants, there was an attitude among some that I think could be counter-productive to furthering the cause of technology and education. This attitude combines a little bit of "Not Invented Here" with small doses of arrogance and self righteousness. A lot of us present were, by accident or luck, among the early innovators in creating electronic-based learning tools. That does not mean everything we made was great and earth-shattering. It also doesn't mean that the commercial forces, which have inevitably taken control of the industry and made commodities out ofthose early innovations, cannot produce new and important products. We need to work within the existing publishing industry to create new products that better utilize technology instead of moaning about the "good old days" and how all of our work was co-opted. Everything is co-opted...it's the American way.
Joyce Hakansson, Independent consultant -- It was wonderful to see so many imaginative and creative people dedicated to creating excellent learning experiences for children. Many of the people in attendance have spend their working years trying to find and then demonstrate how technology can be used to empower children to function effectively in a rapidly changing world. These men and women could have easily moved into business uses of technology and made lots more money, but they have stayed dedicated to their dreams and devotion to improving life for the next generation.
Education is such a difficult area to change. And the introduction of technology into our lives and our world makes it imperative that the things that we learn and the way we learn them does change. It will take a concentrated effort on the part of the education community to identify and explain to a skeptical and divided public how schools and learning can and must change. We need to create models of excellence and demonstrate their effectiveness. It can be done, and many of the people in attendance at the conference could make it happen, but it will take cooperation, collaboration and time and money.
It will also take the efforts and cooperation of hardware manufacturers to improve the design and ease of use of computers. We spend too much time and frustration trying to figure out how to use the hardware and software, and not enough time on the content and purpose of our efforts. The difficulty in using computers limits experimentation and creativity in their use by the majority of people, including educators. There is so much possible, lifelong learning, access to information, resources, people and ideas, world wide - it is frustrating not to be able to make it available to everyone immediately.
Ann McCormick --Re: Stanford conv. "...for the record" The most striking thing I heard from one of the most gifted, brilliant, experienced women I know in children's software, "There is no job for me." I felt, what is wrong with our country? Our children need what we can build together. The financial model is based on such short term thinking. People should be hounding us to create what the next generation needs.
Jan Half, Account Manager, Education Access --favorable impression of Stanford meeting: liked the way participants could facilitate sessions of our choosing; lots of energy and experience in the group; -- learned about some software programs that may be suitable for my middle and high schools who are asking for software that is at the elementary skill level; I challenge companies to develop software of this type.
Frona Kahn, Co-Founder, DesignWorlds for Learning, Inc.-- What were your impression of the Stanford meeting? Woodstock for ed technologists. What we needed at the end was Peter, Paul and Mary singing: Blowing in the Wind, or If I had a hammer. When I began my work at The Learning Company, I was much younger, and did not yet have children. Yet, I always pushed for quality. My boys, now 7 and 11, have been my test subjects and joyous motivators with every product since.
As a collective group we are a powerful force for change. Now, we need to match the idea people with the financial people, to allow the creativity a launching space. Herb's [Kohls] influence and writings must be mentioned as Warren stated "the reasons we got into education".
Multiple conversations and ideas flourished. Passion for quality abounded. Many important connections were made--the implementation phase for follow-up is critical, so that the energy and commitment gets channeled. I think we should focus on Midian's comment (paraphrased) and Judy Salpeters "so what if we were all together, as one company, we could really do something!"
Dr. Thomas G. Wicks, III-- I wish every educator could have been present. Having personally met many of the developers and pioneers that got us where we are today, I have a much greater appreciation for the software that I have and will be purchasing. Their commitment of time, energy, creativity, quality, and willingness to share was evident by their behavior throughout the conference.
Ann Bubnick, Contributing Editor, On Computers Radio -- It was both uplifting to be in the company of all these great visionaries and downright discouraging to address the issue of commercialization drowning out far nobler educational purposes. Yet we each have the power to effect change in our own spheres of influence. There still is hope. We all have to believe that. It was very timely for me. I'm pulling together this computer lab for an elementary school right now and repairing years of amateur attempts to make it happen. It's an incredible opportunity to *observe* kids in a lab situation when they are unaware that you are watching. There are lots of computers here. Yet, their power is being underutilized. An Internet hookup goes unused. And I see lots of horrifying evidence that teachers allow the computers to become electronic babysitting machines. Teachers are making the same mistakes as parents. It's not sitting a kid down in front of a computer that makes them "computer literate." It's teaching them to use the computer as a tool as an instrument for learning.
A year ago, I saw a story on DATELINE about nutrition. They did a study where they sent kids in a grocery store to do the shopping. EVERY ONE has a mom who tries to teach them good nutritional habits. Yet, when these kids were left to their own devices, the *choices* they made were dreadful. They loaded up those shopping carts with every junk food item imaginable. And they had video of kids making many of their purchasing decisions based on what *free toy* came packed inside. Then they brought the moms out. The moms were shocked. Their kids had chosen stuff they would have never allowed into their homes. I always think of this story when it comes to kid software.
Not enough adults (parents *or* teachers) participate in the modeling behaviors that are needed to teach kids good computer habits. And left to their own devices, kids will always gravitate toward mindless, arcade-style entertainment. I watch these kids in the lab. In their *free*-time, they turn on Oregon Trail and go hunting. They've reduced it to arcade entertainment. When they do keyboarding, they are cheating. They're more concerned with the gaming elements of the program. And most sadly of all, they are bored. I know this is not an isolated incident. I ask all my kid-clients what they are learning on computers in school. And every one of them say it's "boring." Yet, my experience is that kids always rise to the challenge. Give them an exciting project on the computer and they don't want to leave! The teachers are motivated in this school. The parents are pushing. And the kids are eager. But no one has known how to move it forward. Integrating technology into the curriculum represents years of frustration to them. At the grassroots level, I don't believe any of this will change until competent techno-savvy professionals are in charge of these labs. It can't be left in the hands of dilettantes. Teachers are simply too busy to pave the way on their own.And they shouldn't have to.
Sadly, Graduate programs in Education Technology don't seem to help. Few of those graduates return to the schools. Instead, they go into software development, online curriculum development or consulting. I have great empathy for teachers. Technology should not have to be so painful.They should not be struggling with machines that don't work because someone did all the software installations wrong or there are dead batteries or they are still trying to *make do* with 4 MB of RAM. Ram Doubler was never designed to work with 4 MB of RAM, yet you see it everywhere.
This school has a server and they attempted to connect 32 computers up to it for printing, using AppleTalk. You can imagine how painful THAT was!!! 20 minutes, just for one simple page to be printed. And not one of these machines has PC Exchange on it. So every time you want to put in a floppy disk, you have to reformat it for the Mac. What a waste of time! The teachers have such basic problems. You can be a hero there, just by *breathing*!! One teacher suffered through months of a printer that kept jamming paper. In 5 minutes, I made the diagnosis. I turned the printer upside down, shook it, and out popped a toy frog.The principal is totally supportive. He already got me 10 new printers from the PTA. And he's letting me replace 40 MB drives with 200 MB ones. And when I asked to *borrow* his PhotoCD of all the student class pictures for a Valentines Day project in the lab, he said it made his day! No one's ever asked to use it. They didn't know what to do with it. He also arranged for two subs to come in next week, so each of the teachers can meet with me for 30 minutes and discuss their syllabus. My goal is to operate in concert with what is going on in the classroom, so that what happens in the lab provides an opportunity for kids to gain further understanding. I tend to use software in different ways than most people, because we have access to all these evaluation copies. I don't think it's necessary to have 20 copies of the same title, if you're trying to integrate technology into the curriculum. I group my software into *themes*.... ("Around the World," Rainforests, Astronomy etc.) and let the kids work collaboratively, in a circuit, or approach the same subject from multiple angles. To complete a project usually involves having to work with multiple software titles. It gives a much richer and broader experience. Too often, adult focus is on *mastering* software. I make that part invisible. The kids have a mission, but it isn't how to use the software.It doesn't work for all software (we have a district license for Hyperstudio, writing programs etc.) but it's an interesting solution. And in the long term, if some specialty software turns out to be particularly helpful, then they can consider buying a complete site license to get each station a copy.
I get email all the time from teachers who get grants and have no idea how to spend the money. This school says the same thing. The parents and PTA always want to give money for technology. But they don't even know how to spend it effectively. Teachers make isolated decisions based on limited experience, with no clue that there may be far better alternatives. And then, they're stuck with this software for the next decade. The hiring practices also are horrible. This is the third school I've worked for where the person who preceded me totally abused the job. In the business world, they would have never been hired based on their limited credentials. It makes me so angry. It's always MEN too. This may sound sexist, but men can get away with saying they know technology when they don't. Women have to prove it. I'm only there for 15 hrs/week, with scheduling flexibility. I wanted a cap on the hours because I can make a lot more money on the outside -- and I didnt want to give up any of my usual activities. But this is a passionate issue for me -- providing positive computer experiences for less sophisticated users. The limited hours is also good for the teachers. I can pave the way for their transitions and plant the seeds for their success so they can function independently. And meanwhile, as Peter Desberg says, this is really fertile ground for writing future articles. I'll be one of the few people who can bridge the gap between school and home.
Ted M. Kahn, Ph.D.--President DesignWorlds for Learning, Inc., Senior Fellow, UCLA Graduate School of Education & Information Studies, Affiliate, Institute for Research on Learning (IRL) Ted@designworlds.com, http://www.designworlds.com,
"If the computer is a universal control system, let's give kids universes to control." -- Ted Nelson, personal computer visionary and co-inventor of hypertext
The Stanford Education and Technology Conversation was a gathering of some the country's leading people in computers, multimedia and education--an industry and profession that, for some of us, personally goes back over 30 years. As Geoffrey Moore pointed out in his book, "Crossing the Chasm", innovators and early adopters (which I would characterize all of us as being) rarely have the same driving reasons or motivations for buying, adopting, or using new high technology products as do mainstream customers. This is the nature of one of the many "chasms" we now face--our values, interests and motivations do not necessarily match those of mainstream education customers/buyers, although we are all clearly committed to providing the highest quality learning experiences we can for children (our own and others).
I fear that another chasm--and this one is potentially much wider--is a growing politicization of the education agenda, one which feeds increasingly "binary thinking" ("yes/no," "good/bad," "right/wrong") habits of the greater part of American society. I fear that this chasm is a much more dangerous one than how to continue to develop new innovative ideas, approaches and products for effective learning of content that can move into mainstream markets--because it tends to produce pre-mature rejection of the products of our labors without enough thoughtful discussion and engagement of all the stakeholders in a learning community--payers, policy-makers, learners and providers.
I believe our challenge as a group is to now take our collective knowledge, experience, and wisdom about education, technology and learning and to turn it toward addressing how to bridge the abyss of binary thinking of those who are the potential buyers and users of the products/ideas we love to design and produce. We might call it one of the largest "social marketing" efforts we have ever faced as a community. We, as a community, need to use what we know about effective learning *to learn to communicate better and interact more deeply with all the major stakeholders in education: kids, parents,teachers, school board members, business people, government and policy people--and to do so in a way that we all avoid creating an ever-widening chasm in our philosophies and thinking about what's best for everyone's learning and education. Part of doing this is realizingwe're all talking about how to really create an effective learning community, rather than just how to create better products that individual parents or schools will want to buy. And also, that we are in the midst of a paradigm shift in which it's going to be the end-users who will be the creators of much more the content than just a small group of designers and producers: in a Webbed education community, we all must become value-added producers and designers in order to really develop the assets of our community for continual lifelong learning.
The Stanford Attendees, (in alphabetical order): Sara Armstrong, Burt Arnowitz, Brigid Barron, Bob Benoit, Jane Boston, Holly Brady, Anne Bubnic, Warren Buckleitner, Marge Cappo, Kenneth Chan, Michael Chertok, Chris Doner, David Dwyer, Jim Greeno, Jan Half, Joyce Hakansson, Paul Horowitz, Amy James, Frona Kahn, Ted Kahn, Michael Kamil, Herbert Kohl, Robert Kozma, Larry Kubota, Midian Kurland, Ariella Lehrer, Rita Levinson, Ann McCormick, Bob Mohl, Margo Nanny, Denis Newman, Henry Olds, Jennifer Pahlka, Roy Pea, Teri Perl, Judy Salpeter, Susan Schilling, Craig Southard, Laurie Strand, Larry Tesler, KoAnn Vikoren, Keith Vogt, Tom Wicks, Kristina Woolsey, Curtis Wong, Don Zundel
Ann McCormick, the founder of The Learning Company, wrote "the most striking comment I heard was from one of the most gifted, brilliant, experienced women I know in children's software, who said 'There is no job for me.' I felt, 'what is wrong with our country?' 'Our children need what we can build together' People should be hounding us to create what the next generation needs."