Introduction

From the narrative in my video:   “A Vision for 21^st Century Learning,” I open by saying the following:

This is our world.   Digital technology; constant networking; instant gratification; global connectedness.   Different stimuli than previous generations.  This is how people live their lives.

We live in a world where the average age of a child’s first use of a computer or video game system is during or before kindergarten.   And according to Don Tapscott, author of Grown Up Digital,  by the time today’s “Digital Natives” reach their twenties, they will have spent over 20,000 hours on the Internet and over 10,000 hours playing video games of some kind.   We also know that long-held beliefs that the human brain stopped developing after childhood are plain wrong.   Books such as The Brain That Changes Itself show through patient case studies how our brains continue to evolve throughout our lifetimes, and additionally, we observe every day how the typical “digital native” is better able to multitask, interact with technology, and require active, not passive, vehicles with which to consume content.   Research has shown the games can lead to successful learning outcomes, including:  i) experiential learning; ii) inquiry-based learning; iii) goal-setting; iv) self-efficacy; v) cooperation; and vI) feedback.   Kids are playing online games and exploring virtual worlds and other online role-playing games, and instead of trying to prevent such usage in the school environment, how can we develop 21^st century blended learning environments that incorporate the types of stimuli that today’s children are utilizing in their daily non-educational activities?

Education Reform has historically been an emotionally-charged and hotly debated issue.  The system was created to address the population boom of the Industrial Revolution.  It grew quickly, and eventually, public education became a large, bureaucratic institution too large to adapt to the innovation happening outside of its walls.  Entrepreneurship and innovation were the ingredients that build our country, yet ironically, it is the lack of these same elements in education that continue to hamper the long-needed reform efforts.

The current administration has taken an activist approach towards education reform and has signaled a greater federal role in public policy efforts.   However, the purpose of this white paper is to outline a suggested approach towards successful implementation of game-based learning and other digitally-driven pedagogical shifts in Georgia’s public education system.   This roadmap comes from the extrapolation of two empirically-based strategic frameworks:   i) disruptive innovation theory; and ii) an innovation ecosystem.   Both of these frameworks provide a clear roadmap for how to implement systemic change in education, which includes implementation of progressive, game-based learning tools in the classroom environment.

Disruptive Innovation:  A Primer

In the widely heralded and respected book, Disrupting Class:  How Disruptive Innovation Will Change The Way The World Learns, co-authors Clayton Christensen and Michael Horn demonstrate how this theory of innovation can be applicable not only in commercial industry, but in education as well.  Here is the famous illustration from the popular book:

The aforementioned illustration is used to explain why organizations struggle with certain kinds of innovations and how organizations can predictably succeed in innovation.  There are two types of improvement trajectories.  The solid line indicates what is known as “sustaining innovation,” or the pace at which companies make improvements by introducing new products and services. The dotted lines represent the rate of performance improvement that customers can utilize.  As you can see, customers’ needs tend to be relatively stable over time, although companies improve their services faster than customers needs and as such, these products tend to include more features than are needed.  These innovations are typically complicated and expensive.

Now look in the new plane.  From time to time, things get shaken up when  a different type of innovation occurs in the industry – a disruptive innovation.  What it does is disrupt the trajectory by bringing to the market a product or service that actually is not as good as what has historically been sold in the market.    As such, the existing customers don’t use it and it typically serves the “non-consumers.”    These products typically start simplistically, and less costly to develop.  Thus, the definition of quality is redrawn as well.

This concept is important, because nearly all of the reform efforts to date have been focused on large-scale investments targeted directly at the core consumers and established infrastructure, thus facing the most resistance and result in the lowest probability of successful implementation.  To quote co-Author Michael Horn:

Although the theory does say that power tools are the only tools that will be effective when no one agrees about what to do or how to do it, we live in a democracy that fundamentally does not allow for power tools to be deployed easily. While Mayors Michael Bloomberg and Adrian Fenty seized control of their respective city’s schools and appointed Chancellor Joel Klein (who just stepped down) and Michelle Rhee to deploy power tools in essence, ultimately, as Fenty’s defeat and Rhee’s subsequent resignation shows, they are still beholden to the voters and thus what we call culture tools, which includes democracy.

The key, therefore, is to disruptively deploy game-based learning tools, and below is a suggested approach for implementing these new approaches to learning with the greatest probability of success:

How can we create a practical example from the above illustration?   Consider the following steps:

1.       Identify a strong candidate for the pilot program:

a.       Model charter schools  - e.g., Gwinnett School of Science, Mathematics & Technology, Tech High

b.      Virtual Learning Environments – e.g.,  Georgia Virtual School

c.       Public schools in smaller, less bureaucratic areas  - e.g., suburbs, rural areas

2.       Develop a robust research plan which can be used to publicize expected improvements in motivation, learning outcomes, and academic performance

3.       Distribute in other areas of non-consumption (e.g., underserved communities, low achievers, those requiring differentiated instruction)

4.       Leverage the expanded research results to extend distribution to mainstream school systems

By partnering with the right pilot school, there may be an opportunity to tap into the Race to the Top and other grants that the state has received, but that are much more difficult for learning providers to participate in.

Innovation Ecosystem:   Explained

A woman I met more than two years ago, Merrilea Mayo, is one of the smartest people I know.  She is also an avid gamer, and a PhD.  Her white papers on games and successful learning outcomes were one of the foundational pieces I absorbed when formulating my own vision for games and learning.  Last year, Merrilea asked me to peer review a white paper on Serious Games for K-12 and the challenges in scaling successful business models.  It got me thinking quite a bit - increase in demand but little supply.  What does that mean?

Last year, Shirley Jackson, President of Renssalaer Polytechnic Institute, presented to the Detroit Economic Club an interesting letter titled, "Expediting Serendipity:  Building an Innovation Ecosystem."  Many of the elements can be applied to game-based learning products.  An innovation ecosystem depends on, as Ms. Jackson put it:

• Strategic focus
• Idea generation
• Translational pathways

All of these elements must be abundant and effective if such an ecosystem will be sustainable.    And an intricate set of relationships must be cultivated.  These include academia, industry, labor, the financial sector and government.

With the current state of game-based learning, we have academia and, in small part, industry working together.  But here's what's missing:

• a robust, diverse,  talent development system for game development
• a large number of existing and emerging suppliers of such content (industry)
• a financial sector that has not been actively investing in these companies due to legacy experiences with the challenging economics of investing in the education sector
• a government system that has, up until recently, been slow to encourage, incent and evangelize these types of pedagogical tools.  The SBIR grant process is cumbersome, tedious, with long lead times and arguably unqualified reviewers evaluating grant applications.

To sum up, business models are challenging (as Merrilea correctly points out) because many critical elements remain unfavorable.  So how do we move forward?  Below is a preliminary gap analysis that indicates what is missing in an innovation ecosystem for game-based learning.  New tactics I suggest are required are shown in GREEN.

Below are some of the points that Ms. Jackson makes, and I have added my education-centric commentary in italics.

1. As the education system, like the health care system, is an expression of our basic values, the government, both state and federal, can take on multiple roles that can drive or influence innovation.  While the "Race To The Top" Fund is one controversial example, the government must also provide tax credits or other incentives for private companies developing such products.  A simple criteria can be established to ensure the products meet some level of educational standard, and "educational" can be loosely defined.
2. The government is the key decision-maker, policy-setter, investor, regulator, consumer, end-user and endorser across multiple fronts, and it must use both regulatory and incentive tools effectively. This is not meant to "over-regulate," but to create a roadmap that places the full array of resources behind executing the roadmap.  The problem with the Education Stimulus bill is that the funds were allocated before a specific, actionable roadmap was made.  With all due respect to the honorable Education Secretary, the "four pillars" do not contain specifics about the critical elements:  curriculum, assessment, teacher training, teacher compensation/evaluation, etc.
3. States should be incentivized to fund research labs and talent development programs to ensure that human capital is abundant, and diverse.  The only way to change an industry that has been notoriously homogeneous is to align incentives with various metrics, one of which can be diversity (but not the only metric as I do not want to raise affirmative action issues).
4. Not until venture capitalists see a path to significant ROI will they begin to invest more than just a one-off experiment from time to time.  Perhaps in the short-term to spur investment and innovation, angel investors and venture capital firms can be offered subsidies or tax credits for investments in early-stage companies focusing on K-12 Education Technology, so this definition would be broader than simply game-based learning concepts. This tax credit was approved earlier this year, and it is important that we bring in the right market forces into the ecosystem because competition drives innovation.
5. A robust innovation ecosystem requires translational pathways that bring discoveries into commercial or societal use. One area Ms. Jackson proposes is possibly granting universities an automatic exemption to patent law for the use of proprietary intellectual property in noncommercial research. This does not dilute the importance of intellectual property, but in certain instances, it absolutely appropriate to spur open-source collaboration amongst researchers. Policy-makers must cultivate new kinds of partnerships between industry, universities and nonprofits.  This is one of major shortcomings of the lack of robust venture capital communities in much of the United States with the exception of CA, MA and NY, and to a lesser extent, TX.
6. Our innovation ecosystem may well require more early-stage government support for potentially transformative business concepts in this space.  We need Centers for Innovation Management which can offer expertise targeted by industry, and span across universities in any one geographic cluster. These centers, some of which are already established in various cities, must foster connections between inventors, entrepreneurs and research facilities, established companies and markets around the globe.

Conclusion

It is clear that our education system must find ways to create learning products that incorporate virtual world and role-playing game mechanics.   Evidence clearly shows the  favorable impact these tools can have on intrinsic motivation of our children.   If they’re increasing their “time on task,” they should have a much greater probability of achieving successful learning outcomes.  With the recent grant awards, the state of Georgia has an unprecedented opportunity to develop progressive approaches to education reform.  Instead of directly funding a large-scale effort, it would be wise to instead explore how the state education department can create the optimal conditions for a sustainable innovation ecosystem to emerge – a best-in-class game-based learning “industry cluster,” and let the successes of one pilot program create “networking effects” across the entire state.   Incorporate the elements of disruptive innovation theory and an innovation ecosystem will offer Georgia the best chance at accelerating the improvements in academic performance of its students.

Al Meyers is President of Saisei Consulting, a strategy and corporate development consulting firm focused on digital media and education technology.  He is author an education reform blog: ReinventED Solutions,  founder of TEDxPeachtree, and Co-founder & Board Chair of the Atlanta Music Project.