YouTube and a 1925 Ford Model T?

In a previous post, I paid tribute to my grandfather who recently passed away at the age of 95. He had a very fine collection of vintage cars, and when he passed, many of them were scheduled to be sold at auction. He was particularly fond of his 1925 Ford Model T, because that was the same make and model that he drove to high school as a kid. Due to his affinity for this car, I did not want it to leave the family. Fortunately, I was able to buy the car at auction and keep this heirloom within the family. I look forward to the day when I can show my grandkids the car their great, great grandfather drove as a high school student.

Although I was euphoric that I was able to obtain the car, I soon realized that with this purchase came some interesting challenges. First, when I encounter engine trouble of any kind, I am one of those guys who opens the hood and looks inside even though I have absolutely no idea what I am looking at. If being mechanically challenged were a disability, I would be the poster child!

First, I didn't even know how to start the "Tin Lizzy". I turned the key, but nothing happened. Hmmmmm.

Furthermore, when you sit in a Model T, there are three very confusing pedals on the floor and two even more confusing controls on the steering wheel. I quickly found myself wishing that I had asked grandpa how to drive this thing!

So here I was with this beautiful antique car that we had pushed into my garage (because I couldn't drive it!), and I had absolutely no idea how to start it; let alone drive it. What to do? YouTube of course.

Excitedly, I went inside and began searching YouTube for videos. I quickly found a video explaining how to prepare the car for starting and how to work the unique crank start system. I watched the video and then went right out to my garage, and the car started like I actually knew what I was doing.

Then I watched another video showing how to work the various controls so I could actually pull the car out of my garage. I then watched another video just to make sure the two gave consistent instructions. After this, I was ready to put my new learning to work, and believe it or not, my daughter actually witnessed me drive it around the block.

After basking in the glory of my modest success, I starting thinking about the irony of using a Web 2.0 tool to learn to drive a car that is nearly 85 years old. It also reinforced much of what I have been reading regarding the value of YouTube as an instructional tool. With the vast array of information being posted on a daily basis to YouTube, we educators can find video to support nearly any classroom topic we discuss. Say you are looking for video to support your classroom study of "To Kill a Mockingbird", the Pythagorean Theorem, the Theory of Relativity, the Gettysburg Address, or the proper dead lifting technique, you can find it all on YouTube.

The plethora of free multimedia information available via Web 2.0 makes me believe that the classroom videos and DVD's we used to show will soon be considered ancient relics of the past. Instead, the multimedia we use in the classroom will be "just in time" via the web, which will provide a richer and more meaningful learning experience for our students.

Web 2.0 is rapidly changing the classroom as we remember it. Technology is quickly replacing the textbook as well as the support materials we have traditionally used. If I can learn to drive a 1925 Model T via YouTube, don't you think kids could benefit from this learning tool as well? The kids are ready for us to move to Web 2.0, because most of them are already there. The question is, will public education lead the way or follow?

The Making of a Prodigy...At What Cost?

I recently had a friend share a Nightline news clip with me which focused on a book titled "The Talent Code" by Daniel Coyle. The author of this book argues that talent is not innate, but rather is developed through intense practice, superb coaching, and intense concentration on the task at hand. As I watched the video clip, I found the arguments to be very similar to those made by Malcolm Gladwell in "Outliers", where he argued that talent is is not necessarily innate, but rather a result of opportunity. As I watched the video it caused me to reflect on the message being sent by both authors.

First and foremost, both authors advocate for the importance of the teacher. Whether a child is learning science, baseball, or the cello, outstanding coaching is the key element to success. Coyle found various places throughout the U.S. where an inordinate number of "prodigies" had been developed. He found a singing studio, a quarterback camp and a stringed instrument school where an inordinate number of students seemed to thrive. Each of these schools had the identical variable in common--one outstanding instructor. Interestingly, he also found that each of these instructors had the same characteristics. They were organized, perfectionists, and most importantly, they were not yellers and screamers. Instead, they were very matter-of-fact in their corrections, and always respectful of their students.

What does this teach us? It reinforces what educational researcher, Mike Schmoker, has been preaching for years. In his book, "Results Now", he stated that "the best teachers in a school have six times as much impact as the bottom third of teachers." School improvement is not some mysterious magic formula. The best way to ensure student success is to hire the very best teachers, provide the structure for their success, and support their continuous improvement.

However, the most salient message being sent by both Coyle and Gladwell is that childhood prodigies are not born, but rather made. They both send the message to parents that if you are willing to put in the necessary time, find the right teacher, and have a child who can intensely focus on the task at hand, you too can have a prodigy on your hands. However, what concerns me is the potential cost of this philosophy.

One of the goals of the K-12 school experience is to send out well-rounded graduates who have the ability to pursue a variety of career options. Over the past few years, I have become concerned that many of our students are missing the complete school experience. Immersion in both academics and co-curriculars is an integral part of this complete experience.

I went to a high school that only had about 125 kids in the entire school, and it doesn't even exist anymore. However, we had 83 kids in the marching band, 15 jrs. and srs. on the varsity athletic teams, a JV and varsity scholastic bowl team, an active FFA and many other activities. Many of those who participated in athletics also participated in the music and scholastic bowl programs. In short, we stayed active and experienced all that high school had to offer. However, that was 25 years ago, and things seemed to have changed dramatically today.

Now, public schools have kids who don't play basketball because they are playing club volleyball. They have elementary school kids who play baseball for eight months out of the year, so they can't go to basketball camp. They have kids who participate in wrestling clubs, so they can't go out for track or baseball. They have kids who lift weights for football, so they can't go out for wrestling. We see baseball and softball academies opening all over the state, so that in the four months kids aren't playing organized ball, they can still practice their skills. We see speed and agility clinics opening all over the state so our kids can get bigger, faster and stronger. With all of this scheduled time, how could a kid possibly be in athletics and also experience the joy of the fine arts? It's impossible.

In "Outliers", Gladwell stated that in order to have a chance at "prodigy" status, a person must practice a skill for 10,000 hours. That is nearly 417 full days. To reach this goal by the age of 18, a child starting at age five would have to practice their skill 769 hours per year! In reaching this goal, what is the child giving up? Is it worth it? By driving our kids this hard, are we helping or hurting their futures? Most importantly, whose goals are we trying to reach by driving our kids this hard: the kid's or their parents'?

Due to the rapidly rising expense of post-secondary education, I understand and appreciate the value of the college scholarship, but how do you put a price tag on the value of a well-rounded student? How many times have we heard stories about the child prodigy who became the maladjusted adult? What happens to the child prodigy-in-training when they don't succeed at their chosen skill? What skills do they have to fall back on?

I recently read a blog posting entitled "The Death of the Three Sport Athlete", which alludes to the dangers of this single-minded focus parents have for their kids. I hope the idea of the well-rounded student has not been lost forever, because I believe society will miss the creativity and leadership these students have historically provided.

I would enjoy hearing your thoughts on this issue.