Leviathan II

Blog Reflection 5

I couldn’t help but think about Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes (1651) as I dove into the third and final section of After the Death of Childhood. Thomas Hobbes was a real downer when compared to other more positive thinkers during the age of Enlightenment. While the likes of John Locke and Jean-Jacque Rousseau were talking about natural rights and freedom, Hobbes was railing against such liberal thoughts as threats to social order. As Hobbes put it, the only way to control the mass of monstrously ambitious humans was to install an absolute monarchy where freedoms were kept to a minimum. This is an understandable sentiment considering that the book had been written shortly after the chaos of the English Civil War.

I’m not saying that Buckingham is advocating the Hobbes-like approach to how we handle children and their access to electronic media. But I could see some of the more conservative elements of the educational community thinking that an old “Hobbesian” approach to controlling what materials our children have access to wouldn’t be a bad idea. Buckingham mentions that some feel that today’s children are being irreparably damaged by exposure to violent and sexually-charged material long before they are emotionally ready to handle such themes. The danger here, he says, is that such damage to our children’s psyches could prove to be a threat to the continuation of our social order.

Buckingham brings up a good point in Chapter 7. He mentions that children getting a hold of sexual or violent content is not new, but that the content is more readily obtained since the emergence of new electronic media (i.e. cable TV and the Internet). But I think anyone trying to fight the rising tide electronic media that make any information easier to obtain is going to be fighting a losing battle. Some stalwarts might contend that the battle to protect our children against objectionable material is winnable when one employs the use of the V-chip or other forms of parental control over web content. But as Buckingham points out, if adults move to try to ban access to sexually explicit or violent material, we are really just creating a “forbidden fruit” scenario in which kids would be challenged to find more innovative ways to get such material. They will find ways to find it not just because of the material itself, but because there is the added challenge of thwarting the adult world’s attempt to deny them of such material.

I am not advocating that there should be a free-for-all scenario where anything goes as far as what our children should have access to on their televisions, computers, or hand held devices. As adults (both teachers and parents) we will instinctively try to project our children from exposure to content that they might not yet be emotionally prepared to handle. In actuality, much of that battle is being fought for us as school districts continue to ban access to an ever-increasing amount of alternative media available on the Internet. But I think such efforts on the part of school districts are creating the very same “forbidden fruit” that Buckingham discussed in Chapter 7.

The Changeling

Blog Reflection 4

The emphasis in Part II of After the Death of Childhood: Growing up in the Age of Electronic Media shifts toward an exploration of the perceived changes in people’s definitions of childhood. One interesting trend brought up in Chapter 4 (“Changing Childhoods”) is that children are finding that much of their free time is now spend inside the home, rather than away from the home. Therefore, today’s children are a more captive audience. This puts them in a position where they are made to be easier targets for television programmers and their advertising sponsors. The implication here is that television and the Internet are becoming a secondary education system that may either enhance or detract from the education they receive at school. Whether this helps or hurts the education of today’s kids would largely depend on the programs they watch or the websites they frequent.

I think the most disturbing point brought up by Buckingham in this segment of the book is that since children are spending more time in their own homes their free time is becoming increasingly “curricularized” (Buckingham, p. 67). This paints a picture of a child having much of their waking day structured around time spent at school, watching television, or cruising cyberspace. I would say such a dark scenario could be a reality in the lives of kids who have parents who are perpetually oblivious to their children’s viewing habits for both television and the Internet. But Buckingham does steer this book’s voyage into some more promising waters when he mentions the potential behind much of the new electronic media out there.

Buckingham points out that technology is allowing increasingly younger users to individualize and, in some cases, customize the content they see in electronic media. While the book was printed well before the revolutions of MySpace, Facebook, and YouTube, it seems that Buckingham had his finger on the pulse of an emerging trend just before it broke. As an educator, I am both interested in and repulsed by the potential that such social networking platforms hold. I can’t begin to count the times I’ve heard students discussing how much time they had spent the night before chatting on MySpace instead of studying or doing their homework. But, if given the proper guidance and sense of ethics, today’s students are at the threshold of becoming the next generation of writers, musicians, and cinematographers. The Internet technology of the past 5 years may have as profound an impact on a person’s ability to reach a widespread audience since the invention of Gutenberg’s printing press in the 15^th century. Most, if not all of the social networking sites mentioned here are blocked by school districts across the nation. But if students and educators can find a link between the skills developed on social networking sites and academic or professional success, it might cause districts to reconsider their policy towards some social networking opportunities.

Childhood Lost?

Blog Reflection 3

Part I of David Buckingham’s book After the Death of Childhood: Growing Up in the Age of Electronic Media spends a considerable amount of time exploring notions of the loss of childhood facing today’s kids. According to some in Buckingham’s circle of researchers, the innocence of childhood is being eroded as electronic media make it easier for children to access “adult” content. What I mean by “adult” in this context goes beyond that which would be deemed sexually inappropriate for young viewers. Rather, the book explores more about children gaining access to materials for which they are not yet emotionally mature enough to handle. This includes materials that are either violent in nature or contain explicit language.

As Buckingham points out, during the age of print it was easier for adults to safeguard their children from material that was deemed inappropriate or “adult” in nature. The advent of television required that parents take on the responsibility of screening what their children could and could not see in the home environment. During the formative years of television, this didn’t present a major problem as the range of TV channels was somewhat limited. The evolution of television media from analog to cable, and, finally, digital cable, brought with it added challenges for parents who were wanting to control what their children could see on TV. But as television technology evolved, so did screening mechanisms such as the V-chip and TV ratings system. However, many conrol methods are being rendered mute as Internet and streaming video technologies make it increasingly easy for children to gain access to the proverbial “forbidden fruit.”

Perhaps the most alarming trend that Buckingham’s book addresses is idea that television has eaten away at a child’s ability to develop their own sense of voice and imagination. Buckingham sites Barry Sanders’ A is for Ox in which Sanders postulates that television has torn away time that had traditionally been set aside for family conversation and oral story-telling (Buckingham, p. 30). I agree with Saunders’ theory to a point. Television has certainly carved its niche into the everyday lives of many families in the modern world. But I also feel that television brings with it several positive qualities in acting as a window to the outside world that had been previously unavailable. While television has undoubtedly shoved some elements of oral story-telling aside, it can also provide information (mostly in the form of news) that serve as the impetus of meaningful family discussion.

My initial feelings on the concept that childhood is “dying” are mixed. At this point in Buckingham’s presentation, I agree that some aspects of childhood innocence are being paired away by a buffet of media choices that are proving to be somewhat slippery as adults scramble to find ways to control it. But I would stop short of calling this the “death” of childhood. Rather, I would hypothesize that childhood is evolving, much like the electronic media that is allegedly assaulting childhood innocence.

Trying to Break Out of the Box

FutureWatch Reflection #4

As the COMET 1 cohort moves beyond our portfolio presentations we now find ourselves tasked with crafting a design proposal for a learning space as part of our obligations in EDTEC 700. As I found myself scrambling for resources to assist my team in its design proposal project I came across a web article from the Educause Review called “Future of the Learning Space: Breaking Out of the Box” by Phillip D. Long and Stephen C. Erhmann.

Long and Erhmann present a compelling case in sketching out specific guidelines for the design of future classrooms and learning spaces that will serve the needs of the ever-changing technological, academic, and professional needs of learners. The impetus of the article states that the traditional model of education, one in which the faculty is talking and the students are listening and taking notes, is over. They argue that classrooms should be designed with one overarching theme when it comes to the design of the future classroom; we should be focusing on what the students can do and not just what they know (Long and Erhmann, 2005). Thus, traditional classrooms must be redesigned with active rather than passive learning in mind. Some of the guidelines I found the most useful interesting included the following:

• The classroom is optimized for certain learning activities; it is not just stuffed with technology
• The classroom enables technologies to be brought to the space, rather than having technologies built into the space
• The classroom emphasizes soft/comfortable spaces

While the article was written with students of higher education in mind, it is not too much of a stretch to include these considerations in the design proposals of future classrooms in the high school and elementary school levels. Or is it? I look at the set up in my own classroom and find that it runs counter to all of the guidelines listed above. As it currently stands, my classroom is best suited for direct instructor-centered instruction. My room contains 43 plastic, metal, and wood desks that are definitely not designed for long-term comfort. While these desks can be moved to accommodate various instructional models and group activities, there is only so much room we have to work with. My classroom is loaded with technology but it is not built for students to bring their own technology into the classroom. This has been especially true in the recent trend on campus to password protect all new wireless network hubs in order to prevent students from using their own WI-FI devices in the classroom.

If anything, this article reminded me of the frustrating fact that many teachers in the k-12 setting find themselves hamstrung when it comes to trying to follow advice like that of Long and Erhmann. Each of us would love to have tech-friendly rooms with the latest ergonomically designed furniture and adaptable lighting controls. But we often settle for what our current school site budgets allows, which, at the moment, isn’t much. As teachers we can only hope that when/if we are ever in a position to influence design choices for future construction/remodeling at our school sites that we have our voices and the voices of our students heard. I sit here today on a campus that is undergoing such a remodeling process. To my knowledge, neither teacher nor student input was included in any aspect of the design phase.

Web 2.0 and the Future of Learner-Centered Education

FutureWatch Reflection #3

As the instructional design field shifts toward a more learner-centered style of instruction the educational system as we knew it during the 20th century is literally being turned upside-down. The days of the lone instructor standing in front of the room lecturing to industrial age automatons is over. Classrooms of the future will engage learners via interactions with their peers and subject-matter experts using Web 2.0 technologies. But as technologies such as social networking sites, wikis, and blogs develop and grow, what effects will this have on the future of instructional design?

Perhaps the most recent indication of where Web 2.0 is taking us can be found in the explosive popularity of such platforms as YouTube and Twitter. Both of these platforms serve as an intellectual and entertainment buffet where consumers customize their information intake based on their individual interests. People are now able to filter the information available in cyberspace so that they can more readily get the information they want. It is plausible that learners within the next 10 years will be able to approach some of their learning much like they do when they log-on to YouTube or Twitter. They may have a customized start page, lessons tailored to meet their specific learning goals and learner-specific assessments.

As a teacher and budding educational technologist I am excited to be a part of this changing dynamic in education. My three loves as an instructional designer, namely Web 2.0 technologies, learner-centered instruction, and evaluation of instructional effectiveness are all being taken for a ride on this wave of change. But just how far will technology take this customization of information and education? I was somewhat alarmed while reading Chapter 31 of Trends and Issues in Instructional Design and Technology and Reiser and Dempsey’s description of emerging neuroscience technologies. They described a system called transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) which can not only map brain function, but it may also be able to predict exactly how effective a learners performance might be in completing an instructional objective. I don’t want to see my future students just walk in and plug their brains into an educational kiosk. While this extreme scenario isn’t an immediate reality, teachers are going to have to realize the computer technology will continue to displace antiquated educational models of teacher-centered learning.

Steve Hargadon, the founder of the Classroom 2.0 social network, posted reflections on ten future trends of Web 2.0’s impact on the future of education. He points towards an explosion in self-publishing as well as professional and academic interaction. Students will most likely take an increasingly larger roll in planning their educational and professional careers. Moreover, teachers will most likely cede some of their traditional roles as evaluators and tap into using student peer evaluation as a valued resource. Future instructors need to rethink the traditional classroom model of the teacher being the primary source of information and turn that model into one centered on student interaction with their peers and subject-matter experts throughout the world.

The Networked Student

FutureWatch Reflection#1:

The “Networked Student” video presents a revised view of the roles of teachers and students in the 21st century classroom. This view is based on the learning theory of connectivism in which students take a more active role in planning their educational and professional careers. Connectivism hangs its hat on the notion that students can be empowered to take charge of their own learning while simultaneously building academic and professional networks that will serve them well beyond the years spent in the classroom.

The advent of the Internet in the 1990s has given rise to the next generation of web-based learning and communication software that surfaced in this current decade. These so-called “Web 2.0” tools are becoming an increasingly consistent presence in the social and academic realms of our society. Connectivism gives credence to the hope that tools such as hand-held PDAs (i.e. the iPhone, Blackberry, or WiFi MP3 players) used in conjunction with emerging web-based technologies (i.e. blogs, wikis, podcasting, RSS readers) will provide students with the tools needed to develop their own learning strategies and experiences.

Given the ideal situation in which a student would have access to all of the technologies noted above, he/she would then be able to learn any given subject by seeking out his/her own subject matter experts via the Internet. From there students would then be able to forge their own connections with subject matter experts while also participating in on-going dialogue with their student peers around the world.

What are the implications for teachers and school districts should connectivism indeed prove to be the wave of the future? The role of the teacher would shift from a more traditional role to one of a learning mentor or coach. The teacher of the 21st century connectivist classroom would become a teacher of information management, guiding students in locating relevant sources and helping them develop relationships with subject matter experts.

While there is undoubtedly tremendous upside to the benefits of the connectivist model one has to consider that any shift to connectivism in the classroom will be met with its share of obstacles. One major obstacle on the horizon would be the financial constraints facing schools since the arrival of the current economic crisis. What would it cost to ensure that the “networked” student has access to all of the tools of the connectivist trade? Sure, most schools have computers connected to the Internet, but are all these computers compatible with Web 2.0 tools? Can schools handle the costs of re-training teachers to act as learning coaches? What we are facing as an educational community is a risky investment opportunity at a time where risky investments are largely frowned upon. The proponents of connectivism would have to prove that connectivism is not only a worthy investment, but also an investment that could play a role in creating part of the solution to the current economic troubles facing our society.

Does SUTE suit you?

A response to Chapter 21 application question #1:

The Step-Up-To-Excellence (SUTE) methodology for successful whole-district change lists five essential factors that need to be present before launching any attempt at whole district improvement:

• Leaders who act on the basis of personal courage, passion, and vision.

• Leaders who view of their districts as whole systems and not a collection of individual schools.

• Leaders who understand the benefits of systemic redesign.

• Leaders and team members who have the professional knowledge, change-minded attitudes, and change-management skills.

• Districts who have the necessary human, financial, and technical resources to conduct systematic change.

The SUTE model requires that any district with designs on whole-district change should have a comprehensive mission statement in place that is up-to-date and tailored to meet the specific needs of the learning community. Since the arrival of our new superintendent in 2006, the Sweetwater Union High School District (SUHSD) has focused much of its attention on modernization of school facilities (especially for the older schools in the district) and the implementation of professional learning communities. While these two focus areas cannot in itself be construed as “whole-district” change, it does represent an effort by the district to improve one key area described in the SUTE model, namely, having sufficient technical resources.


The upcoming school year will provide a unique test to SUHSD’s ability to maintain a common purpose and vision. This coming July marks the beginning of SUHSD new common calendar system. The common calendar at SUHSD is part of a larger effort to align the academic year calendars of high schools, middle schools, and elementary schools in the South Bay area of San Diego County. In fact, it could be stated that the common calendar is one aspect of a systemic redesign itself. Before the implementation of the common calendar high schools and middle schools of SUHSD operated on two separate calendar systems; traditional and year-round. It was hoped that the common calendar would help organizationally and financially. A constant challenge presented by the previously conflicting calendar systems was that there were two separate “Welcome Back” meetings to kick of the school year. These welcome back meetings gave SUHSD leadership a chance to remind its employees of the SUHSD mission statement as well as any unique initiatives or programs that the district wanted to focus on for the academic year. It was hoped that a common calendar would create a situation in which only one “Welcome Back” meeting was needed. However, due to state and district budget cuts, it was determined that these annual “Welcome Back” meetings would be one of the casualties of the districts directive to cut back on spending.

The common calendar should not have any effect on the leadership’s drive and vision for improving performance or systemic redesign, should the district deem redesign appropriate. However, it remains to be seen if the common calendar will either hurt or hinder SUHSD’s ability to meet the prerequisite conditions presented by the SUTE model.

Blog Reflection 1: The Multitasking Theory of the 2020s

The instructional theories of the 2020s and the 2030s will most likely be influenced by the fact that the current generation in our K-12 educational system is being trained from birth to be multitaskers. One need only spend a day in today’s classroom to see that students’ attentions are being pulled into many different directions at once. A student in any given classroom might be filling out a graphic organizer, listening to a teacher lecture, and checking his or her friends’ Facebook status updates all at the same time.

Granted, I am unaware of any current research that can accurately measure how much learning is actually going on in the minds of such students. Moreover, it must be assumed that most of the competing media swimming around their minds is not all geared towards learning the tasks put forth by their teachers. But should it be found that students who are multitasking in such a manner are performing comparably to their peers who are not multitasking, it would seem to fly in the face of many theories at the heart of cognitive load theory. Cognitive load theory postulates that learners have only so much space in our working memory that learners can devote towards learning new skills. If students are indeed learning while dealing with so many competing media or distractions, what are the implications of this in the future of instructional design?

With the advent of technology that is increasingly integrating Web 2.0 technologies with hand-held personal communication devices (such as the 3G Blackberries or iPhone) one must assume that students are being trained to be much more adept at multitasking compared to the students of their parents’ or grandparents’ generation. It will be interesting to see if cognitive-load theories change and adapt as the technologies that students use continue to evolve. I would guess that the development of such technologies will continue to accelerate as we move further into a post-industrial economic and educational model. Future instructional design theories will most likely take into account that learners of the 2020s and 2030s are increasingly able to integrate a variety of educational media into their learning environments. The challenge facing instructors in the future is how to extract the superfluous media streams our students crave while plugging in content that will aid in the learning process. Helping students to more effectively use their handheld devices to assist them with their learning (helping them learn the tasks we put before them) could prove to be a great boon to educators worldwide.

Upon further and more realistic reflection, I am confronted with two burning questions. Are students using these devices in class simply as a means to escape the drab realities of their classroom environments and, if that is true, would plugging in media pertinent to the learning tasks that they face eliminate the thrill of using such devices. Perhaps integrating their “toys” into the learning environment might push them into seeking alternative forms of distraction while in the classroom.