“Wow!,” “Fantastic,” and “Inspirational”were words that filled the Twitter feed coming out of the latest Halifax Regional Centre for Education (HRCE) Innovation in Teaching Day (#HRCEID2018), held November 2 and 3, 2018. The primary cause of the frenzied excitement was a keynote talk by Brian Aspinall, author of the edtech best-seller Code Breaker, a teacher’s guide to training-up a class of “coder ninjas.” The former Ontario Grade 7 and 8 teacher from Essex County honed his presentation skills at TEDx Talks in Chatham and Kitchener and is now the hottest speaker on the Canadian edtech professional development circuit.
Mr. Aspinall, the #CodeBreaker, is a very passionate, motivational speaker with a truly amazing social media following. He built his first website in the 1990s before graduating from Harrow District High School, earned his B.Sc. and B.Ed. at the University of Windsor, and learned the teaching craft in the local Windsor Essex school system. In 2016, he won a Prime Minister’s Award for Teaching Excellence in STEM. Watching him in action on You Tube, it’s obvious that he’s a real showman and fairly typical of a new breed of North American edtech evangelists.
Like many edtech visionaries, Aspinall experienced an epiphany, in his case while teaching his Grade 8 class. “Someone brought to my attention that every grade 8 in our building was born in 2000 or 2001, ” he recalls. “You could hear the brain matter shift, turn, implode and explode in my head. I had never thought of it like that. My mind was blown.” Then Aspinall remembered: “I have only taught in the 21st century…went to university in the 21st century! And I’ve been teaching for nine years now!!”
Edtech evangelists like Aspinall have multiplied rapidly in the 2000s as provincial and school district authorities have pursued a succession of “21st century skills” initiatives. The leading motivational speakers, closely aligned with Google, Microsoft, or Pearson PLC, develop their own personalized brands and can be very persuasive engaging users without any overt marketing. The first and perhaps best known 21st century skills evangelist was Guy Kawasaki, the marketing genius who launched Apple Macintosh in 1984 and the one who popularized the use of the word “evangelist” to describe this marketing approach. The TED Talks back list is not only edtech dominated, but a ‘who’s who’ of ed tech evangelism.
Aspinall is an open book and connected almost 24/7, judging from his personal MrApsinall.com Blog and rapid-fire Twitter feed. With 60,400 tweets to his credit, @mraspinall has amassed 40,900 followers and recorded 43,100 likes. Reading his tweets, it’s abundantly clear that he’s an unabashed educational constructivist who firmly believes in student-centred, minimal guidance, discovery learning.
Speaking on stage, Aspinall has a messianic, 21st century cool presentation style. “I’m on a mission to expose as many kids as possible to coding and computer science, ” he declared in June 2016 at TEDx KitchenerED. That’s popular in provinces like Nova Scotia and British Columbia where coding is being implemented in elementary schools — and where teachers are hungry for classroom-ready activities. He’s filling a need, particularly among teachers in the early grades with little or no background or training in mathematics, science or computer science.
What’s contentious about the edtech evangelists is their rather uncritical acceptance of constructivist pedagogy and utopian belief that “students learn by doing’ and require minimal teacher guidance. A few, like Brian Aspinall, are ideologues who believe that “knowledge is readily available” on the Internet, so teachers should reject teaching content knowledge and, instead, “teach and model an inquiry approach to learning.”
Aspinall’s educational philosophy deserves more careful scrutiny. In his teaching guide and TEDx Talks, he embraces a distinctly “21st century learning” paradigm. In his 2016 TEDx talk “Hacking the classroom,” he distills his philosophy down to four “hacks” or principles: 1) focus on content creation; 2) embrace failure so kids take risks; 3) free up time and avoid time-limited tests/assignments; and 4) embrace the “process of learning” rather than the pursuit of knowledge-based outcomes.
Those principles may sound familiar because they are among the first principles of not only constructivist thinking on education, but the corporate movement driving “21st century learning” and its latest mutation, “personalized learning” enabled by computer software and information technology. In the case of Aspinall, he’s clearly an educational disciple of the late Seymour Papert, the MIT professor who invented “logo” programming and championed ‘discovery learning’ in mathematics and science. If Aspinall has a catechism, it is to be found in Papert’s 1993 classic, Mindstorms: Children, Computers and Powerful Ideas.
Aspinall has also latched onto the writings of Janette M. Wing, chair of Computer Science at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, PA. One of his favourite axioms, quoted regularly, is extracted from Wing: “Computational thinking is a fundamental skill for everyone, not just for computer scientists.” She goes further: “To reading, writing and arithmetic, we should add computational thinking to every child’s analytical ability.” Indeed, like Wing, Aspinall sees “coding” as a way of teaching mathematics in a more holistic curriculum.
EdTech evangelists such as Aspinall stir interest in learning coding, but fall into the trap of assuming that constructivism works in every class, irrespective of class composition, size, or capabilities. Utopian conceptions of teaching and learning bequeathed by Papert are now being seriously challenged by evidence-based research. Classroom conditions and student management concerns conspire to limit the applicability of “makerspace learning” and teachers rarely have the resources to make it work in practice.
More fundamentally, Papert’s model of “minimal guidance” has been effectively challenged by Paul A . Kirschner, John Sweller and Richard E. Clark (2006). “Prior knowledge, ” they found, is essential in providing the “internal guidance” required in truly learning something. High quality, engaging and explicit instruction is necessary, in most instances, to ‘bootstrap” learning, While personal exploration is useful, the most effective teaching and learning approach combines teacher guidance with exploration woven into a child’s education.
Teachers dazzled by Aspinall’s presentations are most likely immersed in edtech culture. Computer software apps and tools such as “Makey Makey” and “Scratch” are bound to make teaching easier for educators and more pleasurable for students. Few question Aspinall’s promotion of Tynker coding programs or his corporate affiliation as a “Microsoft Innovative Educator Expert Fellow.” In his TEDx Talks, he is quite open about his admiration for Microsoft philosophy. “Microsoft believes every child should be exposed to coding,” he tells audiences. “Because you don’t know you like broccoli until you try it.” While he’s not pedaling 21st century ‘snake oil,’ such statements do raise suspicions.
Why have edtech evangelists come to dominate the ’21st century skills’ professional development circuit? What explains the popularity of, and excitement generated by, TED Talk edtech speakers such as Brian Aspinall? Is coding emerging as the “4th R” of 21st century learning and what’s its impact upon the teaching of mathematics in the early grades? Should we be more leery of champions of coding who see it as a way of introducing “computational thinking” throughout the elementary years?
Very enjoyable to read this commentary. You are a marvelous educational think tank all on your own.
I`ll be looking forward to the comments! You know where I stand-:)
These “fad-of-the-month” teacher-gurus show the need for researched-based pedagogy more than ever. It’s a shame professional teachers are bamboozled by this stuff because their own teaching education was so poorly grounded in real research.
It is fine to be an advocate because they sometimes show us directions we did not see, whether coding, critical thinking, etc. It is more important for those in the classroom or who make policy to be thoughtful to ensure that
– the claims are based on evidence,
– the change is worth the time and expense and
– that the addition of a worthy goal does not come at the cost of an equally or more worthy goal. Tony Clement became a pioneer of the use of social media but look at the cost.
Reblogged this on The Echo Chamber.
As an academic, you should know that (more needs to be done) at the University level. That’s where the change needs to take place. Pedagogical/teacher education is beyond dated and largely disconnected from the real world in North America. If you really want to make a real contribution, start there rather than just attack the boots on the ground doing the real work of affecting a better learning environment for students. (Moderated Comment)
Interesting read. I had the privilege of knowing, and having conversations with, Seymour Papert and his larger MIT community. We are still all friends and colleagues (except, of course, Seymour who passed away). I also know Brian.
I believe that your concerns about ed tech evangelists have much validity. It is driving me rather crazy these days too. They are great performers and marketers of their skills and beliefs. Many of these folks are extremely critical of past educational practices—suggesting that the first-time around with ‘coding’ (in the 80s) that there was limited pedagogy and that was why it didn’t succeed. I disagree. There was an extremely robust pedagogy of constructivism. https://theconstructionzone.wordpress.com/2017/07/09/limited-pedagogy-in-the-past-i-dont-think-so/#comment-5636
Having said that, I differ with you when it comes to suggesting that the ed tech evangelists of today are disciples of Papert and other constructivists/constructionists of that era. They are not truly representative of the depth and breadth of scholars such as Jean Piaget or Seymour Papert. They are certainly espousing their words and some representation of their thoughts.
But, if Seymour were around today, he would have much to say about the current ‘frenzied excitement’ created by these folks.
I am not arguing with you about the merits of constructivism. But, in fairness, that’s what we all should be doing! We should, as educators, be unpacking constructivism/constructionism and other educational theories and practices—rather than surfing the surface of them in these evangelical speeches.
Take ‘coding’ for example. I don’t think it is the holy grail—there are many other educational needs I could address. But, in relation to this discussion, let’s stick with coding. I have a rich history with it from a socio-cognitive perspective. So, rather than just telling us all how great ‘coding’ is, I believe we need to ‘bring more to the table’ when we are working with teachers and helping to support excellent practice for coding. We should be building up from what we already know from early research in coding – https://theconstructionzone.wordpress.com/2017/05/03/lets-not-start-from-scratch-some-early-research-on-coding/
ok. That’s enough said. LOL
Very constructive comments, Peter. It would be interesting to hear what Seymour Papert thinks about tech-evangelists invoking his name and piggy-backing on his research. He’s gone now, but I suspect he would view many of the current crop with a healthy dose of skepticism.
Thank you, Paul. Yes, Seymour would be skeptical. On one hand, I think he would be thrilled that more students have access to programming. But, he would NOT be thrilled about the curricularization of ‘coding’.
Well, I have one more thing to add. 🙂
Regardless of what I feel about ‘ed tech evangelists’…I do respect their right to speak. I can disagree with their messages—or the form of their messages. And, I often do. Brian and I have disagreed…but, we have been respectful of each other.
I have seen many positive effects of Brian’s presentations. Perhaps, it is that he encourages people to get started into things they might not have attempted. Maybe, as time goes on, and they become engaged with ‘coding’ or whatever it is, they will dig more deeply and be better educators as a result.
It is up to us all to play our role in moving education forward.
We all do this differently.
Well said, Peter.
Reblogged this on Dr Judith Norris and commented:
@acueducationandarts @acuedle #edle682 interesting discourse here Masterclass. Keen to hear your responses to these super questions
This seems like a flawed argument. Because Aspinall promotes Constructivist activities, that does not follow that he “…fall[s] into the trap of assuming that constructivism works in every class, irrespective of class composition, size, or capabilities.” It’s extremely rare that a teacher engages their classes 100% of the time. Teachers know about scaffolding, fading when students are ready for Constructivist activities.
Why wouldn’t an educational speaker promote Constructivist activities? Would you or any educators prefer to see what’s new in behaviorist teaching?
In my 32 years in education, I have seen no technology or method the holds more promise than students creating their own computer programs. Coding empowers students to create, apply what they know while learning the fundamental skills necessary for all disciplines such as critical thank, problem-solving, and perseverance.
I’ve heard students say that they never cared about variables, the coordinate plane, et al. until they had to apply those ideas to make their programs work.
I wish there were more leaders like Brian Aspinall who can share the transformative power of coding in education.
Good to hear from educators who have worked with Brian Aspinall and can testify to his impact upon learners of all ages. If you follow Educhatter, you know that the focus is on raising questions and sparking deeper discussions. Your comment is what makes this “the lively corner” in Canadian education.
Peter has made many great points and in knowing Brian as well, I think that the enthusiasm does get some educators started on a path of reflection and learning they might not have happened upon – this can be a good thing. Whether that is sustainable in order to robustly change practice is up for debate and probably dependent on too many factors to easily define here. You link to a good article by Andy Ko…who challenges us to resist the dichotomies to which we often resort, and whose experience with Papert’s Mindstorms clearly left lasting impact. https://medium.com/bits-and-behavior/mindstorms-what-did-papert-argue-and-what-does-it-mean-for-learning-and-education-c8324b58aca4
Perhaps you’ll consider joining Peter and I for some more discussion on https://voicEd.ca? We have a Mindstorms book study going and we are asking some of these challenging questions. We’re joined by Brian Silverman and Artemis Papert this week and heard from Carol Sperry last Sunday. You can check out the group, and other guests, here: https://www.facebook.com/groups/948166852049090/
One final thought relates to what Scott mentions “Coding empowers students to create, apply what they know while learning the fundamental skills necessary for all disciplines such as critical thinking, problem-solving, and perseverance.” In my 31 years in education, coding joins learning through the arts as a powerful way to think and learn – maybe! I see lots of ‘recipe’ type coding projects that wouldn’t make the cut there in my opinion – so there is a still a qualifier around effective pedagogy and instructional design (constructivist, instructionist and constructionist) in everything we do!
Thank you, Brenda, for your comment with its many constructive suggestions. It prompted my to look at your blog, Learning Zone, and to consider some of your insights gleaned from your years of teaching. I cannot promise to participate in your voicED project, but will see if I can find the time to make a contribution.
Glad you replied here, Brenda! 🙂
Paul, you can join the group and/or listen to the episodes on http://voicEd.ca without ANY commitment. 🙂 Just listen, lurk, and participate if you’d like!
Brenda and I are not interested in an echo-chamber version of this book club. That moves no one forward. We love, and crave, that our ideas are challenged.
We challenge our guests. We challenge each other constantly. It makes us better.
And, better is what we want.
We are also not at all interested in superficial platitudes like ‘every kid needs to learn to code’ or ‘coding helps kids problem solve’, etc.
We want to unpack these issues. We want to think deeply—as we expect kids to do.
Have you signed up yet? lol