I am indeed still tuned in, but have been scrambling the past couple days to apply for jobs, finish a draft of a long-overdue thesis, and travel to my brother’s wedding (where I am now). But I’m glad this discussion continues!

In response to your question about how (or whether) to get LeBron or Danica into all the problems, I think I should clarify that I don’t envision attention-grabbing hooks in every problem of a software package. Hooks shouldn’t even be written into the majority of the problems. I just think their frequency should be greater than zero, which is roughly how often engaging devices are employed in the math software I’ve looked at.

But let me step back and try to factorize the issues of debate here. Some of the points I was trying to get across in the article are:
1) Math software could be a really powerful educational tool.
2) The math software packages currently available are skull-numbingly dull.
3) Math software would be more effective if it engaged students’ attention and interest.
4) To improve math software will require the efforts of seasoned math classroom teachers (not just software engineers and entrepreneurs).

If I can convince a reader of these four points, I consider my job essentially done. Now, I know that I also devoted a lot of attention in the article to the question of how to make software more engaging to kids. And most of the criticism from you and the other commenters has focused on those strategies. That is entirely legitimate–if I write it, others can critique it.

But if we can set aside the question of how to make software more engaging, I think most of us here can agree that software ought to be more engaging. As a way of quantifying this goal, let me propose a criterion for judging whether we have met this objective. Since I’m a modest guy, I’ll give it a modest name: the Wulsin Test.

An educational software package passes the Wulsin Test if a significant minority (let’s say 20%, to pick a round number) of students (taken from all levels–no fair creaming just the gifted kids) assigned to use the program in school voluntarily complete at least one unit (the equivalent of a textbook chapter) on their own, outside of school, without any academic incentive.

To my knowledge, no comprehensive educational math program has passed this test. They pretty much are all so boring that the only way students will spend time on them is if they are stuck in a classroom under the watchful gaze of a teacher. That shows that educational software is still in a very primitive stage. I believe that math software could pass the Wulsin Test with flying colors, and I expect it will be done relatively soon, probably within the decade.

I think the Wulsin Test is a worthy objective for math software developers and educators to strive for. But certainly it is not the only thing they should care about. If World of Warcraft were an educational program, it would pass easily. Software can be engaging without being effective. But being engaging does not preclude effectiveness. And so I think more educators should be trying to figure out how to make software better able to hold students’ interest.

Once some good educational programs become popular, then it will be much easier to answer the question of what particular strategies prove engaging–and effective. After all, software makes randomized trials pretty easy. With a large number of students using a software program, there will be a lot of data to evaluate what works and what doesn’t. Then the debate about methods can be grounded in evidence, rather than theoretical speculation–which is about all we can go on now. But the first step is to get kids to log on.

Cheers,
Wells

I’m not convinced that “narrative arc” is needed for everything (I think Dan hits too hard on this point), but it certainly is much more important than hi-res video or celebrities.

I think that the attraction of WCYDWT is not so much the videos or the narrative as the puzzle. Pinning down what makes a puzzle fun is difficult, though, so narrative may be a good tool for more reliably creating student interest.

It’s like those “The More You Know” PSAs. They were clever, witty, and filled with A level talent when they first started. Now you’ve got nightly news staff and B level talent from cancelled shows doing cheesy versions of them. I can tell you which ones I would prefer, and like all great shiny things, eventually they get dull.