Wednesday, July 22, 2015

Even top sports stars are realizing the importance of sleep

Nick Littlehales: the man who showed Cristiano Ronaldo how to sleep


What is the professional journey to becoming Cristiano Ronaldo’s sleep coach? For former golf pro and bedding industry marketing guy Nick Littlehales, the path to one of sport’s most unconventional and interesting careers started in the late 1990s, when he wondered why elite sporting organisations and teams didn’t pay any attention to the importance of sleep.
He started by zeroing in on the world of football and contacted “his local club”, which just happened to be Sir Alex Ferguson’s Manchester United. “I was always fascinated on one hand how important this natural recovery process was but just that the general population, never mind sport, took it for granted,” he tells Guardian Australia while in Sydney to talk all things sleep.
“Things have changed a lot,” he says. “Technology and sports science has come to the forefront.” Littlehales’s previous experiences in the field came not from science or the world of academia but in the more practical process of designing, manufacturing and selling sleeping products – beds, mattresses and pillows.
Ferguson’s realisation was that even if he had a firm grasp on what players were eating, how they were training and what impact it appeared to be having on their performance, the club had no control or influence over what they did once they jumped into their luxury cars and drove away from the club’s training base.
With Ferguson persuaded that his players’ sleeping patterns should become a higher priority, Littehales scored early points with the manager for his success working with United defender Gary Pallister, whose debilitating back injuries eased once Littlehales discovered the player was sleeping on a mattress that hampered his injury treatment.
“You can never cure a lower back problem like that but we saw some significant improvements,” he says, “so that triggered [the club’s view] that maybe there’s something more in this.” Until then there had been a general acceptance that players would function better after a solid night’s sleep, but no meaningful attempts at addressing it properly. “All I did was open the door,” says Littlehales.
In no time he had become involved in the planning of United’s recovery rooms at their Carrington training facility, which piqued the interest of Arsenal manager Arsène Wenger. “[Clubs] started looking at peripheral vision. They started looking at pilates and yoga.”
The British press was equally intrigued by the mysterious new figure driving in and out of the club’s training ground. “They got tipped off that I was actually coaching the players on sleep,” he says. “That started to get people thinking about that whole area.” Sixteen years later he is a leading figure in the field, having assessed and reconfigured the bedrooms of a legion of international sporting stars as well as working with Chelsea, Real Madrid, England’s national side and a host of Olympians.
For the 2004 European championships, the FA employed Littlehales to travel ahead of the England squad to strip out and reconfigure team hotel rooms and set them up for recovery purposes. It was an unprecedented move at the time, each player’s room tailored to specific needs.
With elite athletes now spending so much of their life on planes, coaches and in hotel rooms, the only really surprising thing is that it took so long for a job like this to exist. Littlehales makes sure sportspeople get the right hotel rooms on the right floor, the right air conditioning and temperature control, plus appropriate lighting and beds. Most plush hotels, he says, are designed with hen parties, stag weekends and lazy holidays in mind, so feature generic beds designed to accommodate anyone between 50kg and 200kg. They’re certainly not tailored to the needs of elite athletes. “It’s about marginal gains,” he says of his role.

For the Team Sky’s Tour de France cyclists, Littlehales created “sleep kits” that replicated what he had previously specified for each rider at their home. First there’s a bedding “topper”, a thin layer of foam customised to the body shape and requirements of each athlete, which is either placed on top of the existing hotel mattress or, if it’s not suitable, on the floor. Each one can take up to 150kg without the user feeling the floor.Littlehales has a unique and encyclopaedic knowledge of which five-star hotels are best suited to athletes and harangues the ones that aren’t up to scratch into upgrading their mattresses and bedding. Other important factors are the potential for total black-out from the sun and temperature control (16-18C is the ideal range). But the bedding is crucial. “If they don’t tick the boxes I’m bringing my own or we’ll try another hotel,” he says.
Endurance events such as the Tour are mentally taxing, so he also instructs team bosses to ensure each rider has seven sets of white linen, to be washed, dried and replaced each night to give the rider a greater sense of calm. Filters are placed over air-conditioning vents to remove allergens from the room and each athlete wears nasal strips to open their airways and avoid mouth-breathing. Nothing is left to chance.
And what about the age-old theory that eight hours of kip per day is what we need? Rubbish, says Littlehales. “Nobody gets it and nobody achieves it.” He says everyone has different physical and mental recovery times but that for elite athletes, five 90-minute sleep cycles a day is optimal, no matter what order they are in. Training schedules are now often tailored around that need and many club training facilities now equipped with sleeping pods – specially-designed bedrooms for strategic napping.
Punishing travel and playing schedules, public scrutiny and the pressures of mainting such high-profile careers are what Littlehales believes lead to sportspeople taking risks with sleeping tablets and self-medicating to sleep. “They’re overstimulated to cope. That can be caffeine … sleeping tablets just get popped because they can’t sleep or they think they won’t be able to sleep.”
Routine is also vital. Each athlete has their own chronotype; they’re either morning people or night owls, a factor Littlehales says is genetic. “If you don’t identify what that chronotype is you become an in-betweener,” he says, adding that this discovery is of particular importance to footballers, limited-overs cricketers and tennis stars, whose job is to perform at their optimal capabilities at nighttime. Some are simply born with an ability to function at a high level well into the night, others need to adapt.
Compounding all these issues in the last decade has been the advent of smartphones and electronic tablets, which allow players to lie in bed reading everything that’s written about them online, a pitfall Australian tennis star Nick Kygrios admitted to during his recent Wimbledon campaign.
“Our exposure to artificial light has just gone through the roof,” he says of the dramatic shift from phones that were for talking and listening to bright screens that athletes often stare at until all hours of the night. “That light is so intense and combined with everything else like the TVs, it’s all about wake, not sleep … we’re just letting it infiltrate our lives without any control.”
Accordingly, it’s impossible even for someone in Littlehales’s position to convince the modern athlete that they should avoid Googling themselves or Twitter-searching their own name, as many do. Twenty years ago support staff could keep players away from newspapers and TV bulletins, but with all of the internet in the palm of their hand, the curious modern athlete is never far from online noise.
“It’s too tempting just to see what might be out there,” he says. “Their agents and their media people try to control it but, just like all of us, they like to tweet or put that picture up.” As Littlehales says this he is standing at the window of his own hotel room and notes that even in as intimate a space as that, an athlete is never safe from scrutiny. Perhaps someone in the building across has spotted them, snapped a photo and tweeted it out for the world to see before the athlete has crossed to the other side of the room.
The one electronic device Littlehales does recommend is a small dawn light simulator that emits gradual light to replicate the natural circadian process of sunrise. In an ideal world every athlete would combine one of those with black-out curtains, temperature control and clean air.
Equally exasperating but beyond the control of sleep coaches and conditioning staff is that many young athletes have grown up in the world of online gaming and take consoles with them wherever they go, playing against team-mates and friends until all hours of the night as relaxation from the stresses of their professional lives.
“When you combine all of those factors it is extremely counterproductive but in sport, the way these guys get away from all the intensity is to lock themselves in rooms and play games. If they can’t sleep, they play games. They play against their mates.”
These days sleep coaches are much less likely to be measuring sleep time or tracking sleep quality through wearable devices, as was traditionally the case, but simply removing the impediments to relaxation and sleep from the athlete’s sleeping environment.
In his ideal scenario, Littlehales says athletes wouldn’t be banned from having sex before big games (“absolute crap”) but most definitely sleep solo, with partners leaving for a separate room once it’s time to get 40 winks. Many top football clubs agree. At Real Madrid’s training centre only the player himself can gain access to his customised sleeping pod, so Ronaldo sleeps alone. Littlehales says people would be surprised by the spartan, purely functional bedroom facilities at Manchester City’s academy, where the emphasis is on player recovery rather than pampering. City players will sleep there before home games.
For players who do sleep with their partner there are many extra factors to consider; the size of the bed; whether the partner is a light or fitful sleeper; that a right-handed athlete is best sleeping on their left side but on the right side of the bed, facing out to the wall or window. Still, even Littlehales says I’m taking it a bit too far suggesting that right-dominant athletes might ideally find left-dominant partners and vice versa. At the extreme end of the scale are Roger Federer’s two separate houses for use during Wimbledon, one for himself and his training and conditioning staff, the other for his family.
Remarkably, Littlehales says most elite athletes he works with have previously paid no attention to their sleeping environment at home, sending a partner or assistant out to buy their mattress and bedding. At worst that decision can lead to shoulder and neck complaints and contribute to other injuries. “I very rarely find that they’re sleeping on the right stuff,” he says.
But for those who’ve always wondered what it would be like to get inside the bedroom of a famous sportsperson, Littlehales has a sobering insight into the levels of excitement found there; the very same TVs, alarm clocks, tablets and smartphones that are stopping the rest of us getting a decent night’s sleep.

Tuesday, July 14, 2015

Why Free Play Is the Best Summer School





The author's sons enjoying summertime in their younger years. Jessica Lahey
Most schools across the nation have marked the end of another academic year, and it’s time for summer. Time for kids to bolt for the schoolhouse doors for two long months of play, to explore their neighborhoods and discover the mysteries, treasures, and dramas they have to offer. This childhood idyll will hold true for some children, but for many kids, the coming of summer signals little more than a seasonal shift from one set of scheduled, adult-supervised lessons and activities to another.
Unscheduled, unsupervised, playtime is one of the most valuable educational opportunities we give our children. It is fertile ground; the place where children strengthen social bonds, build emotional maturity, develop cognitive skills, and shore up their physical health. The value of free play, daydreaming, risk-taking, and independent discovery have been much in the news this year, and a new study by psychologists at the University of Colorado reveals just how important these activities are in the development of children’s executive functioning.
Executive function is a broad term for cognitive skills such as organization, long-term planning, self-regulation, task initiation, and the ability to switch between activities. It is a vital part of school preparedness and has long been accepted as a powerful predictor of academic performance and other positive life outcomes such as health and wealth. The focus of this study is “self-directed executive function,” or the ability to generate personal goals and determine how to achieve them on a practical level. The power of self-direction is an underrated and invaluable skill that allows students to act productively in order to achieve their own goals.
Children who engage in more free play have more highly developed self-directed executive function.
The authors studied the schedules and play habits of 70 six-year-old children, measuring how much time each of them spent in “less structured,” spontaneous activities such as imaginative play and self-selected reading and “structured” activities organized and supervised by adults, such as lessons, sports practice, community service and homework. They found that children who engage in more free play have more highly developed self-directed executive function. The opposite was also true: The more time kids spent in structured activities, the worse their sense of self-directed control. It’s worth noting that when classifying activities as “less structured” or “structured,” the authors deemed all child-initiated activities as “less-structured,” while all adult-led activities were “structured.”
All of this is in keeping with the findings of Boston College psychology professor Peter Gray, who studies the benefits of play in human development. In his book Free to Learn: Why Unleashing the Instinct to Play Will Make Our Children Happier, More Self-Reliant, and Better Students for Life, he elaborates on how play supports the development of executive function, and particularly self-directed control:
Free play is nature’s means of teaching children that they are not helpless. In play, away from adults, children really do have control and can practice asserting it. In free play, children learn to make their own decisions, solve their own problems, create and abide by rules, and get along with others as equals rather than as obedient or rebellious subordinates.
When we reduce the amount of free playtime in American preschools and kindergartens, our children stand to lose more than an opportunity to play house and cops and robbers. Some elementary programs recognize the importance of play and protect its role in preschool and kindergarten. Montessori schools and Tools of the Mind curricula are designed to capitalize on the benefits of self-directed free play and student-initiated activities. Tools of the Mind programs, for example, place even more importance on developing executive function than on academic skills. In their terminology, “self-regulation” is the key to success both in school and in life:
Kindergarten teachers rank self-regulation as the most important competency for school readiness; at the same time, these teachers report that many of their students come to school with low levels of self-regulation. There is evidence that early self-regulation levels have a stronger association with school readiness than do IQ or entry-level reading or math skills, and they are closely associated with later academic achievement.
This is not news to most teachers, who, when tasked with educating increasingly crowded classrooms, hope and pray for students with well-developed executive function. The ability to self-direct can spell the difference between an independent student, who can be relied upon to get her work done while chaos reigns around her, and a dependent, aimless student, who is distracted by his classmates and must be guided from one task to the next.
Parents, if you really want to give your kid a head start on coming school year, relinquish some of that time you have earmarked for lessons or sports camp and let your children play. That’s it. Just play. Grant them time free from your ulterior motives and carefully planned educational outcomes. Let them have dominion over their imaginary kingdoms while their evil dragons, white wizards, marauding armies, and grand battles for supremacy unfurl according to their whims and wills.

 http://www.theatlantic.com/ June 20, 2014 

Wednesday, June 10, 2015

What Overparenting Looks Like From a Stanford Dean’s Perspective





To What End? A heightened level of parental involvement in the lives of kids obviously stems from love—unquestionably a good thing. But by the time I stepped down as dean at Stanford in 2012 I had interacted not only with a tremendous number of parents but with students who seemed increasingly reliant upon their parents in ways that felt, simply, off. I began to worry that college “kids” (as college students had become known) were somehow not quite formed fully as humans. They seemed to be scanning the sidelines for Mom or Dad. Under-constructed. Existentially impotent.

Tremendous good can be said about the baby boomers—they were drafted into and questioned the Vietnam War, lay their bodies on the line in the monumental civil rights and civil liberties struggles of their day, and fueled the greatest economic growth our nation has ever seen. But did Boomers’ egos become interlaced with the accomplishments of their children to such an extent that they felt their own success was compromised if their children fell short of expectations?14 And did some of these parents go so far in the direction of their own wants and needs that they eclipsed their own kids’ chances to develop a critical psychological trait called “self-efficacy”—that is, what eminent psychologist Albert Bandura identifies as “the belief in one’s capabilities to organize and execute the courses of action required to manage prospective situations”?15 There’s a deeply embedded irony here: Maybe those champions of self-actualization, the Boomers, did so much for their kids that their kids have been robbed of a chance to develop a belief in their own selves.

Did the safety-conscious, academic achievement-focused, self-esteem-promoting, checklisted childhood that has been commonplace since the mid-1980s and in many communities has become the norm, rob kids of the chance to develop into healthy adults? What will become of young adults who look accomplished on paper but seem to have a hard time making their way in the world without the constant involvement of their parents? How will the real world feel to a young person who has grown used to problems being solved for them and accustomed to praise at every turn? Is it too late for them to develop a hunger to be in charge of their own lives? Will they at some point stop referring to themselves as kids and dare to claim the “adult” label for themselves? If not, then what will become of a society populated by such “adults”? These were the questions that began to gnaw at me and that prompted me to write this book.
These questions were on my mind not just at work but as I made my way in my community of Palo Alto, where the evidence of overparenting was all around me—even in my own home. Too many of us do some combination of overdirecting, overprotecting, or over-involving ourselves in our kids’ lives. We treat our kids like rare and precious botanical specimens and provide a deliberate, measured amount of care and feeding while running interference on all that might toughen and weather them. But humans need some degree of weathering in order to survive the larger challenges life will throw our way. Without experiencing the rougher spots of life, our kids become exquisite, like orchids, yet are incapable, sometimes terribly incapable, of thriving in the real world on their own. Why did parenting change from preparing our kids for life to protecting them from life, which means they’re not prepared to live life on their own? And why do these problems I’m writing about seem rooted in the middle and upper middle classes? After all, parents care deeply about doing a good job and if we’re fortunate enough to be middle- or upper-middle-class, we have the means—the time and disposable income—on our side to help us parent well. So, have we lost our sense of what parenting well actually entails?
And what of our own lives as parents? (“What life?” is a reasonable response.) We’re frazzled. Worried. Empty. Our neighborhoods are photo-worthy, our food and wine are carefully paired, but with childhood feeling more and more like an achievement arms race, can we call what we and our children are living a “good life”? I think not. Our job is to monitor our kids’ academic tasks and progress, schedule and supervise their activities, shuttle them everywhere, and offer an outpouring of praise along the way. Our kids’ accomplishments are the measure of our own success and worth; that college bumper sticker on the rear of our car can be as much about our own sense of accomplishment as our kids’.
In the spring of 2013 I attended a board meeting for an organization that provides financial support to Palo Alto’s public schools. In casual conversation afterward as the parents were taking one last piece of coffee cake and heading out into their day, a woman who knows of my work pulled me aside. “When did childhood get so stressful?” she pleaded with a faraway look. I put my hand on her shoulder as tears slowly filled her eyes. Another mother overheard and came toward us, nodding her head. Then she leaned in, asking me, “Do you know how many moms in our community are medicated for anxiety?” I didn’t know the answer to either question. But a growing number of conversations like this with moms like these became another reason to write this book.
The dean in me may have been concerned about the development and prospects of young adults who had been overparented—and I think I’ve made better choices as a parent thanks to spending so much time with other people’s young adults. But the parent in me has struggled with the same fears and pressures every other parent faces, and, again, I understand that the systemic problem of overparenting is rooted in our worries about the world and about how our children will be successful in it without us. Still, we’re doing harm. For our kids’ sakes, and also for our own, we need to stop parenting from fear and bring a more healthy—a more wisely loving—approach back into our communities, schools, and homes. Through research woven together with real-life observations and commonsense advice, this book will show us how to raise our kids to become adults—and how to gather the courage to do so.

Wednesday, May 27, 2015

Should Student Success Include Happiness?

Should Student Success Include Happiness?

By Vicki ZakrzewskiPeter Brunn | May 25, 2015 | 5 Comments
If we want our students to become happy adults, research suggests that schools should focus more on students' well-being than academic success.
But does that brand of success lead to happiness? Several studies have found that childhood emotional health and kind, helpful behavior—two major factors that contribute to our happiness—are the greatest predictors of life satisfaction in adulthood. The least important predictor? Academic success.
tetmc
For sure, getting a job is a huge and important part of adulthood. But anyone who’s ever been an adult knows that there’s more—so much more—to life than work. And scientists have determined that experiencing positive emotions and having a sense of meaning in both our work and our personal lives are critical to our well-being.
So rather than making it an either/or situation—either job skills or happiness and meaning—what if we taught students both? In other words, what if teaching them how to build happy and meaningful lives was integrated into the cultivation of their future employability?
Research on the importance of helping students develop skills that lead to happy and meaningful lives behooves educators (and policy-makers) to at least consider the possibility. Yet how exactly does learning to cultivate a happy and meaningful life fit into education? And even more importantly, how do we teach it?

Where happiness fits into education

According to leading happiness researcher Sonya Lyubomirsky, happiness is defined as “the experience of joy, contentment, or positive well-being, combined with a sense that one’s life is good, meaningful, and worthwhile.”
In other words, happy lives are usually made up of a combination of positive emotions and meaningfulness—both of which contribute greatly to a child’s learning process and well-being.
Emotions play an integral role in education, affecting students’ motivation, attention, social functioning, and ethical decision-making. For example, enjoyment of learning motivates students to put forth greater effort, whereas boredom only decreases effort. Anxiety lessens students’ ability to problem-solve, but hope and pride can increase self-efficacy. Thus, creating safe and caring classrooms and designing engaging lessons, both of which promote positive emotions in students, should be high on a teacher’s agenda.
One caveat: Emotion researchers state that feeling positive emotions all the time should not be the goal, as this actually lessens our well-being and happiness. And in certain circumstances, negative emotions such as anxiety can actually motivate students to study harder.
Instead, educators should recognize and validate students’ emotional lives and help them work withall their emotions in a rich and balanced way. In this way, teachers are promoting students’ emotional health, which is foundational to happiness.
In addition to positive emotions, happiness also depends on a sense of meaning—that our lives and our experiences make sense and matter. Students often complain that what they’re learning in school is not relevant to their lives, which can lead to disengagement.
Yet researchers have found that students who see the connection between their school work and their future work goals find more meaning in what they’re learning—on one condition: their goals must benefit others in addition to themselves, and not be oriented towards making money. This is a finding that holds true across diverse socio-economic and racial lines. In other words, focusing too much on money and careers can actually contribute to a sense of meaninglessness.
Research also shows that students who hold this kind of prosocial orientation experience greater well-being, are more likely to persevere in tedious academic tasks, and stay on track for college. Moreover, teachers who encourage their students toward this kind of approach to life are, once again, laying the foundation for happy and meaningful lives.

But can you teach happiness?

For teachers who want to help students develop happy and meaningful lives, does this mean that you have to completely rethink your curriculum and how you teach?
Not at all. In fact, educators who include social-emotional learning (SEL) and mindfulness in their classrooms are subversively cultivating their students’ happiness and sense of meaning by fostering their emotional health and prosocial skills.
But there are some subtle nuances to the teaching of these skills that can enhance students’ happiness and sense of meaning even more.
  1. Make SEL and/or mindfulness a part of every lesson.
    If you think about it, life does not parcel neatly into 50 minutes of academic content and then 20 minutes of happiness skills, such as SEL and mindfulness. Instead, life requires us to have the content knowledge and, at the same time, the know-how for getting along with others and, frankly, ourselves.
    Teachers who integrate SEL directly into content areas help students develop socially and emotionally by making these skills relevant to their daily lives. Incorporating SEL and mindfulness into the day does not need to be complicated, nor does it need to take a lot of time. For example:
    • Before introducing a tough math concept, remind the students that if they start to feel frustrated, instead of quitting, they might do some belly breaths to help them stay calm and focused on the task at hand.
    • Carefully select books that allow students to consider how a character in the text might be feeling. Allow them to explore what choices the character made and try to understand and empathize with why the character made those decisions.
    • Start and end the day with two minutes of mindfulness practice, so that students learn the value of approaching life with a sense of calm and focus rather than distracted “busyness”.
  2. Let students work things out.
    Imagine how awesome it would be if we only worked with people we got along with… but that’s not life!
    One of the greatest things teachers can do to help students cultivate skills for happiness and meaning is to give them opportunities to work with other students who challenge their social capacities. In this way, students learn the ins and outs of happiness-boosting qualities such as compassion, kindness, and forgiveness.
    Yet, standing back and observing when cooperative groups are struggling can be really hard for teachers. And sometimes, just to avoid the whole situation, teachers will “engineer” working groups so that they’re only made up of students who get along with each other—or they’ll just throw cooperative learning out the window.
    But rather than fearing the chaos that can ensue when students make behavior mistakes, educators might try embracing those golden moments because that’s when students can really learn. In order for them to develop the skills and strategies they need to build positive relationships, they need chances to learn from their mistakes. Many SEL programs teach conflict resolution skills and the regular practice of mindfulness can help students become aware of when their ire has been roused and make the choice to respond in a more kind and helpful way.
    In academic content areas we might start a lesson by saying, “I know some of our groups have struggled to work together. So what can we do today to make working together go more smoothly? What ground rules do we need to set? What tools do we have if things get tough?” And then after the lesson, reflect on what worked and what did not work. Make a list that you can refine and revisit each time students work together.
  3. Build in time for reflection.
    Reflection helps us build meaning in our lives. It allows us to bring our humanity into what we are doing by asking how something changed our thinking, our view of the world, our beliefs about others or ourselves.
    Teachers who give students time to reflect on what they’re learning and experiencing—both internally and externally—help make the curriculum relevant to students’ lives. They see that not only are they learning content knowledge, they’re also learning to connect with each other, to be empathetic, to understand their own needs and the needs of others. In other words, they’re learning the foundation of what it means to live a happy and meaningful life.
Ultimately, we must ask ourselves, “What exactly are we educating for?” As our society evolves and as we gain a deeper understanding of who we are as human beings, the answer to this question is changing. No longer is it enough to train for job skills—because how we live our lives really matters.

Monday, May 18, 2015

Why is University Still Here?


Universities are supposed to be dead. These bastions of higher learning have been on Silicon Valley’s hit list for much of the past decade, and disruption phasers targeting the industry have certainly been set to kill in the years since the global financial crisis.
And yet after years of efforts, we have arrived in 2015 and almost nothing seems to have changed about the way we get our degrees or even just our continuing coursework.
MOOCs – Massive Open Online Courses – were supposed to be the vanguard of the new online education movement, surging to popularity in 2011 and 2012 following a rash of press about the end of higher education as we know it. Since those discussions though, MOOCs seem to have fared poorly. Just take a look at their popularity:
Coursera and Udacity's Google Search Traffic
Coursera and Udacity’s Google Search Traffic
If we use Google Trends to search for the names of the two most well-known MOOCs, Coursera and Udacity, we see that both of them seem to have stalled in terms of search traffic, a sign of weak new user growth (one way VCs can get a feel for a startup’s word-of-mouth distribution is to look at its search traffic – if a friend mentions a new company, people tend to search for it on Google or the App Stores).
As any founder will try to convince you, traffic is not the only metric to judge a company, but it is one of the most crucial, particularly in a space like education where popular acceptance of a credential is critical to the success of the entire endeavor.
What happened to the revolution? Education is arguably the most important activity of our society, providing the basis of the knowledge economy and ultimately our prosperity in the modern world. There are incredibly smart people thinking about this everyday, both inside the ivory tower, and in colorful co-working spaces across the country. How could we go so wrong?
What the world is discovering is that humans are going to be humans (a discovery we seem to make a lot in startup-landia). We failed to ensure that motivation and primacy were built-in to these new products, and in the process, failed to get adults to engage with education in the way that universities traditionally can.

The Motivation Challenge

Just take one of the most repeated attacks against MOOCs: their incredibly low rates of course completion. Depending on the course, the signups to completion ratio can easily be in the low single percentage points, with an enormous drop in the opening weeks of a course as people either commit or leave.
New forms of online education like MOOCs lost both forms of primacy at once. By making them free, students had few incentives to not quit any time the course materials got boring or difficult.

This was, frankly, a dumb metric to condemn MOOCs over – it’s essentially the bounce rate for websites. Who cares?
However, motivation (and also patience) is the key ingredient for success in education. While drop off rates in course completion are partially indicative of the quality of the MOOC education product, they are far more valuable as a reflection of the limited dedication to continuous learning that most adults have in the first place.
I realize that this can be hard to accept in an industry like software startups where the rate of autodidacts is probably one of the highest in the world outside universities themselves. Nevertheless, there is a reason that teaching colleges spend so much time discussing how to inculcate lifelong learning, since that is simply not the default for most people. Family and job demands (aka life) can easily preclude this sort of on-going investment of time into education.
Besides lack of time though, the key challenge for open online education was connecting learning to more pecuniary outcomes, namely job performance, promotions, and new job searches. Outside of programming, which seems to be a unique area of learning with a high return on investment, few courses seem destined to transform a working adult’s job prospects.
Indeed, Google Trends as well as other media sources seem to corroborate the notion that MOOCs were more successful overseas, where students often have strong financial incentives to improve their skills but lack the kind of plentiful education that is available in the West.
Without internal or external motivation, online education products have faltered. All the structure of online courses ends up being just overhead compared to reading a book or an article, without any clear additional value either in terms of education or in terms of economics.

A Lack Of Primacy

The motivation problem should have been obvious from the start. Libraries and books have been widely available throughout the United States for easily the last century. While video lectures may be an improvement over books, there were also companies for years that sold lectures online or by mail order, albeit often at a steep price. Those who wanted to be educated had the means to do so.
There is another element to motivation though that is crucial to recognize in our early experiments with online open education, and that is the power of primacy. Primacy is making education the primary activity of a student’s day, or perhaps more specifically, the primary thought activity of the day.
Primacy is deeply connected to motivation, since it makes learning the default rather than a conscious decision that we make throughout the day. Furthermore, primacy also allows us to peer deeper into knowledge, since we can make connections between facts and theories that we might otherwise miss out on.
When we attend a physical university, we automatically give primacy to education. There is something about the configuration of a college campus, the schedule of courses, and the mobs of students roaming around that places us in a mindset for learning.
There is also financial primacy that comes from paying large tuition bills. Traditional forms of online education through universities like Kaplan or University of Phoenix still benefit from this sort of primacy, since students are paying incredible sums to receive their education. Money speaks to us, especially when it is leaving our bank account thousands of dollars at a time (or adding up on our student loan summaries).
New forms of online education like MOOCs lost both forms of primacy at once. By making them free, students had few incentives to not quit any time the course materials got boring or difficult. Without a physical presence, there weren’t the social peer effects of friends encouraging us to attend our classes on time, or shaming us about our poor performance.
These products often tried to emulate the feel of a course by forcing students to take them concurrently. The effect of that model, which Coursera particularly prioritized, appears on the surface to have been unsuccessful, while also reducing the convenience that should be the hallmark of online education.
Open education is absolutely needed – course materials should be distributed as widely as possible for as cheaply as possible. Knowledge deserves to be free. But that openness also makes it hard for these materials to gain primacy in the lives of their students when they are just sitting on the web like every other web page.
From the results so far, it doesn’t seem like we have the answers here yet. Online communication tools have proliferated and significantly improved since the founding of the web, but we still have yet to build the kinds of high-quality and deeply intellectual communities that can handle more than a few dozen members before disintegrating. We need to think about the aspects of primacy we can bring to the web that can rival traditional universities.

Education 2.0?

There are few areas of startups today that continue to be as exciting as EdTech, but we have to be cautious in getting ahead of ourselves. Unlike shopping or socializing online, education is simply not as native an activity for many adults today. We can’t just assume that if we build it, they will come.
Instead, we need to think more deeply about motivation and primacy in order to build a new mix that takes advantage of the internet’s best properties while competing with the quality of the university experience.
Strong examples of this abound already. Duolingo, for instance, uses a mix of spaced repetition methods along with gamification elements to encourage language learners to stay the course. That model emulates certain aspects of physical learning that may be just enough to keep the motivation levels going among students. We will have to see the results in a few years.
Education is crucial for the success of our entire economy. Silicon Valley is right to throw resources at the problem, which remains extensive. However, we need to see humans for what they are, and find the tools and techniques to make sure we help all of us accomplish the dreams we are setting out to do.

Sunday, May 17, 2015

'Most Likely To Succeed': Schools Should Teach Kids To Think, Not Memorize


Our education system was perfectly designed...to prepare workers for routine jobs that no longer exist. As we try to out-drill and out-test Korea we are leaving millions of young adults ill-prepared, uninspired and lacking the skills they need to thrive in an innovation economy. After seeing this film, you'll never look at school the same way again



Fourth-grader Scout is struggling to keep her composure during a parent-teacher conference as the teacher expounds upon the character-building aspects of having failed a math quiz. She fixes her tearful gaze in the distance. "I know that face," says her father, filmmaker Greg Whiteley. "That face is saying, 'This is bullshit. This whole thing called school is bullshit.'" 
Whiteley's latest documentary, "Most Likely to Succeed," delivers a message Americans need to hear, and desperately: our schools are failing our children, leaving them unable to think critically and contribute to an innovation economy.


The educational system is broken. Or at least outmoded, says Larry Rosenstock, founding principal and CEO of High Tech High, a network of schools upending the current framework in California. "We have a system that was created over 100 years ago and everyone has a mental model that says that's the way it has to be," he told The Huffington Post.
For too long, the primary focus of education has been the acquisition of knowledge, explains Tony Wagner, expert-in-residence at the Harvard Innovation Lab. "The whole idea is: [if] you know more stuff, you're going to be better off, for whatever sets of reasons. And the only way to get it is through the teacher," he says in the film. "You don't have to do that anymore. Today, content is ubiquitous, it's free, it's on every Internet-connected device, and it's growing exponentially and changing constantly."
High Tech High's methods eschew the traditional instruction of what educators call "content knowledge" -- equations, dates, facts. Instead, the schools strive to foster creative problem-solving with a multidisciplinary curriculum. In lieu of tests, students present collaborative projects that require artistic vision, mathematical prowess and historical understanding. As in life, failure is not a letter grade.
But success is what most students find. Boasting a 98 percent college-matriculation rate among graduates, High Tech High warrants a closer look, and Whiteley's documentary devotes a full year to examining the project.
"The film derives its strength from Greg [Whiteley], a caring father who starts on this thinking we should have more testing and longer school days, and he makes the same path and the same journey as he wants our audience to take, " says executive producer Ted Dintersmith. "I spent 25 years in venture capitalism, and I could see a few things very clearly: one is how quickly routine jobs are going to be replaced by automated solutions."
Stressing the urgency of changing the education system amid America's lousy job market, he added: "The only surviving skills that will save young kids are creative and innovative. As the current school system is now, for 12 of 16 years, you're not in an environment that brings that out of them."
Rosenstock strives to uncover educators who connect student work to the practical world. Mark Aguirre, a humanities teacher at High Tech High since 2001, is a prime example of the type of educator Rosenstock seeks out. "You've been trained to raise your hands," Aguirre tells his students in the film. Out of character for most ninth-grade teachers, Aguirre employs Socratic seminars, instructing his students to imagine a classroom without his presence: "You need to talk to each other and get used to that instead of always looking at me."
As often as parents and students embrace Rosenstock's model, others communicate uncertainty, particularly as High Tech High's unconventional approach relates to teaching math skills.
"We're not for everyone, and parental anxiety about math is most common," said Rosenstock. "Parents think, 'If my kid's good at math, they're smart; if my kid is bad at math, they're not.' We know that's not true. Anxiety about a child's math ability slips off around ninth or tenth grade, when the level of math that the child is doing is still what the parent can handle. After that, it's no longer math that they can do themselves because they don't use it because they don't need it." By focusing on application, High Tech High dispenses with rote memorization.
During our conversation, Rosenstock stepped into the hall at High Tech High to read aloud from a prominent banner scrawled with Campbell's law: "The more any quantitative social indicator (or even some qualitative indicator) is used for social decision-making, the more subject it will be to corruption pressures and the more apt it will be to distort and corrupt the social processes it is intended to monitor."
"Most Likely to Succeed" implores viewers to consider the human consequences of education. "The question is," said Rosenstock, "who do you want your child to be?"