Entrepreneur
Tim Kelley has a vision for academics, and he is starting to implement it. His
vision is to turn academics into a version of competitive sports, pitting
students and schools against each other electronically in a NCAA bracket type
of competition. Right now, primarily the best students at the best schools are
the ones competing in these NCAA-style math brackets, but Kelley hopes that
this will one day allow all students to be paired up against others with whom
they could be academically competitive (based on past scores) in head-to-head
competitions. Kelley wants students to feel the glory of competition, so that
they will be more motivated to improve. He also wants to make it possible for
spectators to view the matches online live to bring acclaim to math departments
and make others want to participate, as well.
This idea
stems from sports. Kelley recalled student-athletes pushing themselves to
achieve their personal best times in crew, spurred on by competition with peers
and their own previous scores. He designed this program to try to bring that
same competitive spirit and drive to improve into the classroom.
While in
theory this seems like a great way to get kids excited about pushing themselves
academically, it is still an experimental model. Many of the students currently
using the program already compete academically. They travel around the country
for mathematics competitions, and moving this onto an online instantaneous
portal is not very different, just less expensive. However, moving this
head-to-head competition model into the classroom will have less predictable
outcomes. Will students who are doing poorly in school be encouraged to work
harder by head-to-head competitions that involve instantaneous feedback,
perhaps of having lost to a global peer, maybe even day after day? Or would
that further deplete the student’s motivation and inspire them instead to give
up? Would a student far behind grade level who beats another student who is far
behind grade level be given a false sense of their progress? Or will they be
spurred on to climb up the ranks to compete with higher ranked students? It is
hard to predict how making learning into a spectator sport will influence
students. After all, when some kids are bad at basketball, they quit and maybe
have lower self-esteem, while others work harder until they succeed. How can
both kinds of kids be served by this system, or how can teachers ensure that
kids are encouraged not discouraged by this form of learning? With all of these
unknowns, this form of learning is a risky experiment; is it ethical to risk
jeopardizing some kids’ education and well-being by bringing constant competition
with others into the educational environment?
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/03/24/math-march-madness-competition/2010875/
1 comment:
I think Kelley has a really interesting idea. There are already competitions, tests, and contests in the academic world, not only in mathematics. Students who wanted to be challenged would enter these competitions to feel the "glory" as Kelley put it. In a way this system does work because competitions push students to try harder and go beyond their own limits. Kelley's vision of making it online seems to serve a very similar goal.
It is true that we are risking kids' education by experimenting with the education system. However, experimentation is how there can be improvements to the current education system. I think that our society has its way of deciding what's best for the society because people choose what they like. Suppose there are two schools, one implementing the current education system while the other implementing Kelley's system. Our society will naturally select whichever one that works better. In the long run, more people will enroll in the better system, and the bad system will be replaced by the better system.
Personally, I believe that Kelley's vision has a potential of becoming a reality. Therefore, if we just let the schools decide on which education system to implement, and then let the students decide which one to attend, in a few years, we will be able to know the result of this experimentation. There is no risk in doing this experiment because students can simplify transfer to another school if they do not do well in one system.
If turning the academics into a competitive sport actually does yield more successful – it will be up to the society to decide whether a student is successful or not – students, then aren't we losing a great chance for potential improvements in the society when we don't try out Kelley's new idea? With only a small amount or perhaps even no risks involved in experimenting with this new education system, then isn't this a good chance to try to improve our education? Ultimately, the society will benefit as we come up with better and better ideas to improve student's academic career.
Post a Comment