CSS: General | Presentation CSS: General | Presentation
KymBuchanan.org > Playful Interest Bridging >
Draft | Draft | Draft | Draft | Draft | Draft | Draft
Spring 2004
Class: CEP 901b Proseminar in Technology and Education
Instructor: Rand Spiro, PhD
College of Education, Michigan State University, Lansing, Michigan, USA
Apathy is an enduring problem in education. Educators struggle to find strategies and tools for engaging learners. Yet often the same learners are captivated by non-academic novelties, like music, movies, and games. Co-opting is a strategy of re-purposing such novelties as educational tools. It is a playful, opportunistic perspective to complement other pedagogical foundations. Co-opting urges educators to take a genuine interest in students' facility and fascination with new technologies and entertainments. Consider these classroom stories:
1. The class is studying poetry. Each student must bring a poem or song. Most students choose songs. The class listens to each song, then the student reads the lyrics aloud. The class searches for techniques in the lyrics (e.g. rhyme) and discusses the power of the words with and without music.
2. The class is studying composition, including active and passive voice. The teacher plays a clip from a popular film, in which a character often speaks in passive voice. (Yoda: "So certain are you.") The words are overlaid on the action. The teacher pauses the film, and challenges the students to rephrase using active voice. ("You are so certain.")
3. The class is studying Animal Farm. Teams of students explore a virtual simulation of Manor Farm, playing as animals left unnamed in the novel (e.g., ducks, cows). Each team plays in their own copy of the simulation, and tries to guide the story to a different ending. The goal is true animal equality, while minimizing deaths, injuries, and property damage.
Stories like 1 and 2 have happened, in my classroom and elsewhere. Stories like 3 are on the verge of happening. New novelties will continue to emerge, evolve, and compete for the attention of students. Co-opting is a strategic response.
Co-opting is not a new idea. Countless educators (including parents) have tried to co-opt students' technology and entertainment interests. Cartoon characters teach safety. ("Only you can prevent forest fires.") Sesame Street muppets are telepresent preschool tutors. Bedtime stories suggest certain norms and ideals (e.g., virtue, courage, justice).
Experience and common sense validate a simple strategy: identify an engaging technology or entertainment, then re-purpose it for educational goals. The simplicity of this strategy makes it appealing, but also limits its usefulness. The raw engagement may be poorly understood, and guidelines for re-purposing may not be obvious. Co-opting offers a more sophisticated perspective for clearer understanding and more consistent success.
Foremost, learning is viewed as simultaneously retaining conscious information and forming conditioned associations. This view is influenced by information-processing theory, behaviorism, and activity theory. Information includes facts, schemas, and other mental representations. Information is stored through learning and recalled or applied through performance. The retention/recall process is inextricably colored by emotional and sensory experiences (e.g., anxiety, symbols). These associations can't be eliminated; an individual's knowledge is never a purely abstract, neutral-affect phenomenon. Rather, these associations promote or interfere with retention and recall. Interpersonal emotions are particularly strong influences (e.g., trust, belonging), so co-opting fits with situative theories.
Co-opting views learning as behaviorist because learners can't always control the formation of associations. Thus, they don't necessarily select their responses to stimuli. Co-opting uses the powerful stimuli of re-purposed novelties to compel attention and form desirable associations. Interest promotes learning; apathy stunts it. Learning and performance require an individual's attention, and attention depends on motivation. Strong emotions and vivid contexts influence learning. In other words, people learn best what excites them most (e.g., dinosaur names, favorite stories, sports statistics). This influence of affect on learning fits with theories of intrinsic reward and hot cognition. Learners are more motivated when they value learning for its own sake, and cognition can't be separated from emotion.
By nature, the mechanisms of retention, recall, and association manage atomistic information and associations. Mental representations and conditioned associations closely follow the contexts in which they're developed. A context includes time, place, models, and social relationships (e.g., class, classroom, diagrams, other people), in conjunction with one another. The strong influence of contexts means learners must struggle to understand general principles from specific cases. Conversely, it's difficult for educators to represent the complexity of domains without overwhelming learners. Transfer is challenging because learning is closely tied to its contexts.
Yet learning is also building a network of mutually-supportive connections. Humans are good at finding patterns. While information and associations are atomistic, learners try to minimize isolated or "orphaned" information. Learners will consciously or automatically use inductive reasoning, even at the expense of context-specific details. If such details are critical, the result is overly-simplistic mental representations or mis-applied schemas.
Thus, context is a blessing and a curse. Educators must guide learners in moving beyond specific cases to general understanding, but must also remind learners to preserve the critical details and complexity of those cases. Sometimes learners need familiar cases to reinforce their mental representations of widespread phenomena, while other times learners need unfamiliar cases to recognize the functional limits of such representations. Piaget described this balancing act as a process of equilibration. (Miller, 1993) General proficiency and mastery depend on studying a variety of cases and contexts. Through a process of assimilation and accommodation, a learner builds accurate, functional representations and associations.
By influencing contexts, educators can influence learning and promote transfer. Ideally, learning is a vivid interaction between a learner and a compelling context. Co-opting values novelties as engaging contexts for reinforcement or confrontation. For example, in Story 2 the context of a popular film reinforces students' learning about active voice. In Story 1, the context of popular music confronts students with the new idea of songs as poetry.
Engagement is not a weak excuse. At times, engagement may be the most compelling reason for a strategy like co-opting. Story 2 illustrates a timely use of co-opting. For most learners, composition is a relatively abstract and under-whelming domain. The film clip increases attention when it was most needed.
Co-opting is a constructivist strategy. Every learner's interaction with a context is unique, because learners' prior representations and associations influence how they perceive and respond to the context. So what is learned is also unique. In one sense, a learner and a context are systems. Learning is the process of bringing these systems in contact, allowing the context to influence the learner. An educator is responsible for arranging learners and contexts for felicitous contacts. Mental representations can only be built by a learner interacting with a context, not transmitted wholesale by an educator.
Co-opting uses a broad definition of technology to promote systems thinking and progressive teaching. Technology is applied understand through systems. So re-purposed novelties should promote greater understanding by transforming how learners interact with contexts. Superficially, there is little difference between a chalkboard and a multimedia PowerPoint slideshow. Rather, educators need to adapt or develop complementary teaching strategies and theories of learning to leverage the unique affordances of new technologies and entertainments.
Just as co-opting compels educators to look closer at novelties, it also suggests revisiting assumptions about classrooms and teaching. For example, educational games are a potentially powerful form of co-opting. Since such tools are software-based, they may offer unique affordances, like individualized, adaptive instruction (i.e., automatically assessing student ability and adjusting content difficulty appropriately). Such affordances make it possible to question the status quo: tracking, synchronous teaching, summative assessment, etc. While co-opting isn't necessarily a perspective for paradigm change, it does encourage a playful, perhaps divergent, attitude toward tradition. Educators who try to re-purpose novelties may find themselves changed in the process.
Co-opting predicts such multi-directional interactions. Systems thinking suggests that systems in contact will inevitably influence each other. Co-opting foregrounds systemic influences to take advantage of them. It's a process of identifying useful dynamics in a novelty and re-purposing them. For example, if the aesthetics and narrative conventions of a comic book are compelling to adolescents, co-opting suggests creating comic books with desirable learning objectives. Furthermore, an educator who creates such a comic book will understand comic books in a new way.
When two systems come in contact, the multi-directional interactions can be sudden and unexpected. Learners may be urgently compelled to re-assess their existing mental representations. Such jarring moments are desirable for their frisson. In Story 1, analyzing a song as a poem compels learners to re-assess their representations and associations for music, poetry, aesthetics, and critical analysis.
In contrast to sudden, jarring moments, some multi-directional interactions may be long-term or otherwise invisible. Co-opting doesn't try to justify indulging in novelties by touting possible future benefits. However, co-opting educators should remember that apparent apathy or incomprehension in learners may not reflect deeper systemic reactions.
As a systemic, constructivist perspective, co-opting recognizes and values multiple intelligences and similar models of learner variability. Learners are encouraged to construct understanding in their own style. Rich contexts often recruit or privilege a variety of intelligences, talents, and backgrounds. Co-opting can even be used to deliberately privilege intelligences that are under-privileged in the status quo. In Story 1, students with high musical intelligence have an advantage in building understanding.
Co-opting refers to non-academic technologies, culture, and media as novelties, but not in a derogatory sense. It recognizes the value of recreation, entertainment, and catharsis. Rather, it challenges the alleged barrier between work and play. Play is not necessarily incompatible with schoolwork. Children learn through play, especially when they play with each other. (Vygotsky, 1978) The goal of authentic learning environments is allowing learners to think and act as if they were practitioners, to play at being experts. (Honebein, 1996) For example, history may best be taught by allowing learners to practice historical investigation and argument. (Wineburg, 1999) When considering new ideas, readers should play at believing those ideas before accepting or discarding them. (Elbow, 1986) Play is useful in making the familiar strange and in lateral thinking, because the essence of play is raw divergent thinking: "What if..." or "Let's pretend...." Divergent thinking is essential for creativity, problem-solving, skepticism, and critical analysis, where playfulness leads to ideas, solutions, understanding, and/or deeper appreciation.
Co-opting denies that learners or educators have complete control over the formation of associations. This forecloses on the need for an exhaustive causal explanation of retention and recall. Rather, co-opting suggests a post-mechanistic model of teaching and learning. Educators and learners need not understand why a song, film, or game causes powerful emotional responses or associations. It is enough to recognize the raw engagement of a novelty and repurpose it. The engagement may be beyond rationality, beyond our capacity to completely understand or tame. Allegedly, adolescents or adults don't need sensory gratification or engrossing fantasy. But we seek it in our entertainments and popular culture, so it's strange to exclude it from learning. Instead, educators should view learners of any age as whole people, with passions, dreams, and fears. Educators should seek novelties that resonate with these humors, and use them to compel attention and playfulness in support of meaningful learning. In other words, having recognized the intrinsic reward of such novelties, educators should co-opt them to leverage their motivational potential.
There are three levels of co-opting: finding, adapting, and creating. Each level of co-opting requires greater investment, with potentially greater return. The necessary investment may time, money, or other resources. The return is greater engagement and better learning. Despite considerable investment, the return may be negligible. Co-opting doesn't promise certainty, because no strategy or tool can make such a promise.
For each level of co-opting, greater investment generally produces greater return. There is some overlap in effectiveness between levels. So it may be possible to achieve desirable returns from a lower level, without the greater investment of a higher level. For example, rather than creating a new computer game, educators might adapt an existing game.
Investment and return aren't easily quantified. The chart is conceptual, not absolute. The total cost of any strategy or tool is complex, and includes "soft" costs like frustration, curriculum adjustment, and opportunity costs. (NETC, 2003) Total cost also varies across educators and their workplaces. For example, some educators are less comfortable making changes, so the psychic investment of trying something new will be a burden. Fortunately, co-opting can be tried incrementally.
Some novelties can be immediately found and used. Story 1 illustrates this level. In that particular example, the burden is on students to find and share songs.
Some novelties can be co-opted through adaptation. Educators may need to restructure to re-purpose. Story 2 illustrates this level. The original film didn't include overlaid text. Even subtitles may have been too small for classroom use.
The highest level of co-opting is creating new artifacts based on novelties. This level requires a substantial investment. The importance and sophistication of the learning objectives must merit such investment. In Story 3, the themes and dynamics of Animal Farm may be significantly more comprehensible to learners as a result of interacting with the simulation. Such complex learning may only be possible from a context this sophisticated, co-opted or not.
In general, educators should search for novelties that can be re-purposed while preserving their engaging elements. For example, the critical element of a good computer game is fun, so co-opting shouldn't eliminate fun. Educators should be wary of the other elements of a novelty, including trivial or distracting elements. The progressive levels are a trade-off. Found novelties require minimal investment but may include extraneous elements. Creating original artifacts may consume more resources, but allows far greater control over which elements are included.
Co-opting is one of many possible teaching strategies. Some educators will find it more appealing and effective, based on their pedagogy. The most important characteristic of a co-opting educator is a playful attitude toward tradition: a willingness to try new tools and strategies. A co-opting educator believes that any specific tool or activity should be considered if it supports effective teaching and learning.
Co-opting is not a free-form or impromptu strategy. Educators should be careful planners when considering novelties and re-purposing them. Co-opting is not a last-minute substitute for a "real" lesson. Co-opting does encourage improvisation, particularly openness to the unique interactions of learners and their preferred technologies and entertainments. An educator must be perceptive to find a special kind of teachable moment: the pre-existing relationship between a learner and a novelty.
Co-opting respects an educator's unique capacity and responsibility for creating their classes, by urging pragmatic flexibility. Co-opting may be more effective than a traditional tool or strategy. But if co-opting proves unwieldy or ineffective, educators should abandon the attempt. There is nothing intrinsically desirable in co-opting. Co-opting is only justified by its potential benefits.
A co-opting educator is willing to make mistakes and admit them. Co-opting urges open teaching. Educators should be matter-of-fact when introducing re-purposed novelties to learners. Co-opting is not about looking cool or tricking learners. If an educator is open about co-opting and respectful of learners' pre-existing relationship with a novelty, learners will respond more positively. This is especially important with technology, where technical difficulties are more readily forgiven by a sympathetic audience.
Co-opting uses novelties from non-academic culture, so success may depend on cultural competence. Useful novelties may come from insular subcultures, and educators must respect the accompanying values to connect with experts. For example, learners who play computer games may have guidance for educators who would co-opt games, but such learners will feel betrayed if educational games aren't fun. (Fun is a central value of the gaming subculture.) To achieve cultural competence, co-opting suggests co-constructing roles and norms. In Story 1, I permitted adult language and content in the songs, but I banned violence against women, police officers, or in schools. I respected my students' taste, since I wanted the class to study their own poetry, not just mine. If I had imposed my norms too strongly, I wouldn't have had as much participation.
A co-opting educator should see the three levels as a skillset to master through practice. The first level is good entry point, since finding novelties involves minimal investment and risk. An educator may not need to create many artifacts to develop mastery in co-opting. But the full potential of co-opting can only be realized through practicing all three levels.
A co-opting educator values creativity and divergent thinking. By introducing complex contexts to learners, an educator should be willing to accept alternative interpretations and tastes. The educator is still responsible for helping learners achieve appropriate goals, but co-opting supports dialog as well as lecture. In Story 1, there is no absolute definition of "a good poem." Rather, the process of analysis and discussion is valued.
Co-opting demands very little from a class. Rather, co-opting is a response to perennial demands by learners, who want classes to be more engaging and relevant. However, a few desirable characteristics may increase the success of co-opting. An educator may want to discuss these expectations with learners.
A co-opting class encourages divergent or lateral thinking. Radical ideas aren't "stupid" or "weird." Co-opting creates a form of double vision: the educator and learners are simultaneously aware of the original nature of a novelty, and its re-purposed nature. In Story 2 the class knows that the film wasn't created to teach composition, even as it's adapted to do just that. Thus, a co-opting class strives for meta-analysis, to be both engaged by a novelty and to analyze it from a detached perspective.
In Story 3, the most obvious solution may be to eliminate the pigs and their dog-gestapo. Based on how the simulation is designed, this strategy may yield the highest "animal equality score" for the team. But what's more important is discussing and questioning the assumptions of the simulation (and by extension, Animal Farm). Does the dictator Napoleon deserve to die? Such discussion and meta-analysis are more important than the actual intricacies of the simulation's scoring system or the novel's plot.
Co-opting's double vision effect may be particularly useful in ill-structured domains. Such domains are distinguished by "breadth, complexity, and irregularity." (Spiro et al., 1987) Transfer and mastery are especially challenging in ill-structured domains, because they don't yield to general principles or prescriptions. Instead, cognitive flexibility theory argues that mastery can only be gained through interaction with a variety of cases in their natural contexts, from a variety of perspectives. Revisiting is not repetition, and the double vision effect compels learners to re-assess their mental representations. In Story 1, poetry is presented as something greater and more pervasive than the verses found in textbooks. By studying both traditional poem and contemporary songs from multiple perspectives, learners should develop holistic, flexible mastery of analysis and appreciation.
The double vision effect may also be useful for teaching media literacy. Discussion and meta-analysis can compel learners to deconstruct re-purposed novelties, to locate the persuasive and potentially-misleading elements (e.g., attaining popularity by purchasing certain products). Media literacy tries to foreclose on blind obedience to popular culture, especially fashion and advertising. In Story 1, the students may continue to patronize the same artists, but hopefully with a more critical perspective.
A co-opting class recognizes that many learners find schoolwork less interesting than the rest of their lives. In one sense, co-opting doesn't try to make schoolwork more intrinsically interesting. Rather, co-opting tries to connect schoolwork with the world at large, including learners' non-academic interests. Co-opting is about dissolving the artificial partitions people try to create between areas of their lives. Learners must be willing to learn through their passions, rather than deny them. This is not a trivial adjustment. While young learners are often effusive about their interests, older children and adults often hide their passions behind careful disinterest. They may have been mocked for expressing their real identities, and are thus reluctant to risk new hurt. When a co-opting educator introduces a re-purposed novelty, learners must feel safe about responding sincerely. If the classroom climate is hostile to sincerity, the novelty's potential engagement will be compromised.
Co-opting is an ambitious strategy, and faces some significant challenges. Foremost, co-opting is both a teaching strategy and a theory of educational technology. Both domains have a legacy of hype and fads. Co-opting urges realism and pragmatism. It doesn't offer guarantees or a top-down vision. Rather, if co-opting proves onerous to educators or incompatible with their other strategies, educators should reconsider co-opting altogether. Educators can only co-opt new technologies if they proficient with them. Effectively integrating any new technology requires buy-in from all stakeholders, professional development, and technical support. Co-opting can still be tried incrementally, with little or no technology, starting by re-purposing easily-found novelties.
Co-opting depends on the engaging elements of novelties. This dynamic may be fleeting. Certain novelties or kinds of novelties may only be engaging for a short time, or for a certain age group. Educators may need to adapt or create artifacts rapidly, to take advantage of fleeting opportunities. Co-opting urges pragmatism. A tool needs to be just good enough for teaching and learning.
Some novelties may not be easily co-opted. Some learning goals may not be compatible with co-opting. Co-opting thrives on a healthy tension between the original purpose of a novelty (e.g., recreation) and an educator's goals. But if the tension is too great, educators or learners may be unnecessarily confused or frustrated. In such cases, other strategies are more appropriate than co-opting.
Co-opting educators may want to use novelties with proprietary protections. In Story 2, the owners of the film would probably discourage educators from modifying and distributing it. This is especially probable for children's novelties (e.g., cartoon characters), which are often licensed to specific companies. These companies then develop and market products that co-opt the novelty (e.g., educational computer games). Fair use allows educators some impromptu or short-term freedom in co-opting proprietary novelties. But if educators want to develop tools for long-term or widespread use, they should try to extract the engaging elements of novelties and discard the proprietary elements. Culture competence is especially critical here. An expert devotee of a novelty may be able to extract the engaging elements, or explain why the engaging elements can't be separated from the proprietary elements.
Co-opting tries to dissolve the artificial partitions learners try to create between areas of their lives. Thus, some learners may resent or resist this effort. Educators should respect learners' coping mechanisms and learning styles. Some partitioning is healthy, and some learners may want to keep stressful schoolwork separate from stress-relieving novelties.
Co-opting is not a new idea. It's already practiced throughout and beyond formal education. But it's a poorly-understood phenomenon. While co-opting draws on existing theories and results, there are many intriguing aspects to explore further. For example, classroom climate may significantly influence how learners respond to co-opting. Targeted research would better guide co-opting educators.
Co-opting is an intriguing issue for learning theorists and educational technologists, at least. Researchers and practitioners should continue to study and attempt co-opting. The perspective and arguments of this document are intended to foster greater awareness, meta-analysis, and discussion about co-opting. Teaching and learning don't need to be fun. But if education was a little more playful, the learning goals would be more enjoyable and more obtainable.
Elbow, P. (1986). Methodological doubting and believing: Contraries in inquiry. In P. Elbow. (Ed.) Embracing contraries: Explorations in learning and teaching. New York, Oxford University Press.
Honebein, P. C. (1996). Seven goals for the design of constructivist learning environments. In B. G. Wilson. (Ed.) Constructivist learning environments: Case studies in instructional design. Edgewood Cliffs, Educational Technology Publications: 11-24.
Miller, P. H. (1993). Theories of developmental psychology. New York,
W.H. Freeman.
NETC (2003). Total cost of ownership. Open options: Making decisions about
open source software. Portland, Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory.
Available at: http://www.netc.org/openoptions/pros_cons/tco.html
Spiro, R. J., W. P. Vispoel, et al. (1987). Knowledge acquisition for application:
Cognitive flexibility and transfer in complex content domains. In B. K. Britton
and S. M. Glynn. (Eds.) Executive control processes in reading. Hillsdale,
N.J., Lawrence Erlbaum: 177-199.
Vygotsky, L. S. and M. Cole, John-Steiner, Vera, Scribner, Sylvia, and Souberman, Ellen (Eds.) (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, Harvard University Press.
Wineburg, S. (1999). Historical thinking and other unnatural acts. Kappan Web site. Available at: http://www.pdkintl.org/kappan/kwin9903.htm
Created by Kym Buchanan | http://KymBuchanan.org | This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.
