SYNTHESIS/BACKPACK IDEA: A few themes jumped out at me in today’s Educational Innovation session:
- Partnerships that build on strengths, where one unit’s strengths and energy can complement another’s (Tom in Folklore and Mary in Comp Lit)
- Institutes that can house specialized, interdisciplinary paths (Greg in Nelson Institute)
- Modularizations and certifications, where departments can host smaller, more specialized sessions (Gale in Nursing, and Judith in Slavic Languages)
What is the other side of that coin? Can we do this with students as well? In a specialized world, do they need to get a (general) degree in department x? Or should students (could they?) chart a path that builds on their strengths and team up to create their own more specialized degrees?For example, if a student had interests in Engineering but strengths in Graphic Design, she might currently:
- get a double major,
- choose to go with her strength in order to find a job, but forego her interest
- choose to go with her interest (follow passion), and hope that there were opportunities in her coursework to practice what she excels at
But wouldn’t it be wonderful if she could chart her own path between the two in order to create a specialized degree that balances her strengths and interests, and gives her powerful practical experiences in interdisciplinary work with others who will often not share her interests, but can benefit from her skills; and vice-versa. With a talented graphic artist on their team, her engineering peers will be able to draw on her strengths and create things that they’d otherwise not even attempt, and she’d be a valuable/integral part of an engineering project that she might not otherwise have the chops to join. With specialized members in the learning teams, all the members benefit and learn from each other, and can take their learning further than they otherwise might be able to.
Students are used to this model in video games, such as World of Warcraft. They start with a character, get their feet wet doing everything for the first 10 or so levels (15 hours of gameplay). Then they begin to specialize based on what they’ve found that they do well, and where their interests lie. For the next 70 levels (1000 hours of gameplay*) they adjust and refine their specializations, tracking every accomplishment with certifications (badges), and experience points (XPs), moving up from level to level, where they can go on more challenging quests.
After level 10, they are introduced to collaborative quests where they need to team up with other players who have different skill sets. For example, they may need to make it through a “dungeon” inhabited by a mix of creatures and challenges that could destroy any of them, or even a group of players with a similar skill set. But by learning to work with players who have different abilities and interests (and many who are real jerks, just like real life), they can pool and draw on each others’ talents, learn to trust and appreciate others’ abilities, and succeed together as a group.
The challenges increase in complexity, and by level 40 or 50 (300 hours of play), the group size and complexity needed to succeed also grows. By level 60 they may be engaging in quests where 20-30 players need to work together to succeed.
Meanwhile, our standard university graphic design student is getting a generic degree, with no practical experience in the field she is passionate about — no amazing projects where she steps outside of the graphic design department to work on real projects.
How do we build a university-sanctioned talent tree for her?
Post a Comment