I am excited to see this topic opened for discussion in this way. In my opinion, it is an extremely important question.

In my opinion, the evolution of institutions is well under way. What I mean by that is that new types of ‘institutions’ are being created and re-created on a daily basis. Information exchange is evolving more rapidly than the changes can be documented. Only the creators and adopters of new ‘institutions’ can hope to influence (but not control) its direction. The vast majority of these new means of information exchange are unregulated. This fact makes these institutions extremely popular, and contributes greatly to the speed at which they can evolve.

As for institutions such as schools, colleges and universities, the situation is far different. Colleges and universitiies must decide how to adapt to the new world in which they find themselves. One valid approach is to remain more-or-less what they are. There is a distinction, after all, between FORMAL instruction and INFORMAL learning. A provider of formal instruction claims to hold the keys to information and techniques that have been vetted by stakeholders in various fields of study. Within a formal educational setting, a distinction is maintained between correct and incorrect information at any given time in any given field, and the providers of formal instruction take great pains to pass on only what is correct. To the extent that professionally vetted information has value to our culture, formal instruction can and should continue to be made available.

The distinction between formal and informal instruction begs the question of what the transfer of information from expert to novice should look like. It is of little consequence whether students read words or paper, read words on screen, or interact with games or simulations. What matters is that it is the instructors responsibility to control the student learning, and to vouch for the quality and validity of the result. It is not an easy thing to adopt informal modes of communication, such as wikis or games, while still controlling the content of what is learned. This is a difficult dilemma, especially if and when students begin to reject, ignore or forget information that comes to them ‘from on high’.

It can be argued that the fundamental goal of formal instruction must change. Rather than passing carved-in-stone information to students, we must teach them how to obtain up-to-the-minute information on an as-needed basis. While I agree with the latter goal whole-heartedly, I also believe that there will continue to be value in transferring pre-packaged bodies of information and ways of thinking from one generation of professionals to the next. These need not be rigid, but they must not be so flexible as to lose integrity. This is the line we find ourselves treading.

Right. We can not fall into the trap of believing that students choose to drop out because they have discovered a preference for other modes of acquiring information. Much more likely they drop out due to a strong preference for video gaming or recreational drug use over attending class. Some people feel that the best response is to re-package the information we’d LIKE students to have into a game or game-like environment. Any attempt to do this will need to respect the difference between work and play. An activity can not be called a game unless one ‘plays’ it when and if they want to. While some students will choose to play games that, as a by-product, teach them something we’d like them to learn, most would rather slay monsters.

We send students to school in the belief that what they learn there will help make them well-adjusted, productive members of society. If students can achieve that goal without attending school, more power to them! Unfortunately, high dropout rates are probably NOT an indicator that students are integrating themselves into society without the benefit of formal instruction. More likely, it is due to the (correct?) perception that after all that seat time, a below-average student will still be a low-wage earner, criminal, or welfare recipient. Since, by definition, only half our students can be above average, one can hardly be surprised when a large number choose to drop out.