Wee Three Things...

You know the words...."we three kings have traveled so far....daaaa, da, da, du, da, da, da daaa". So it's not Christmas, although I do like Christmas as much as the next guy. But what I really want to talk about are the THREE THINGS. Yes, the three things that I love in instructional design. In fact, they have traveled a long way as well. What are these things you ask? They are performance analysis, principles of design, and learning efficiency. Let me suggest that these three things have a significant future in instructional design, and hopefully education as a whole.

Thing #1
Let me start with a little background on performance analysis in case this term is new to you. Performance analysis is a process by which individual or organizational performance is analyzed in light of deficiencies in knowledge, skills, and motivation. Performance analysts also search for environmental barriers such as disincentives to perform duties, as well as hindrances that make it hard for people to do their jobs. In other words, they fix organizations and people so they do their jobs as they should be doing them.

Star Light, Star Bright...
I think the future of this field is bright and has become mainstream in the corporate world. The growth area is in government, and education. This love of mine will need to be applied in government offices and school districts if our problems are going to be solved. It is not totally different than a previous topic I addressed where I lectured everyone on the need for ecological (or transformational) systemic change. within our school systems. This type of change process, which has been championed by Frank Duffy of Gallaudet University is fundamentally rooted in a total performance analysis of the district, department by department, with a an eye towards eliminating barriers to performance. Sooner or later, things will get bad enough that the public will start demanding that a true and impartial performance analysis be done on our public institutions. At least that is what I keep repeating over and over in my head.

Thing #2
Secondly, I love the principles of design. Humorously, the name which is traced back to Robin Williams of the Non-Designers Design Book, make an acronym which spells CRAP. Ironnically, Robin's own website doesn't abide by ANY principles of good design that I've learned. I'm pretty sure it is a reflection of her offbeat sense of humor.

But I digress, fortunately, for my purposes in education, this acronym can be retooled to say PARC, CARP, PRAC, or RPAC,...although I'm not sure how to pronounce the last one. So CRAP stands for the design principles of Contrast, Repetition, Alignment, and Proximity. Now I don't think these principles are on the cusp of educational research, but they are certainly not going away. In fact, as a fairly young technology educator I intend to propagate these to my students for use in design projects of every ilk. Now granted, there are many design principles that can be applied, but these ideas can help students design their posters and flyers, book reports and PowerPoints, and web pages and blogs. The sooner kids understand their are actually guidelines behind how something should look, the better off we will all be.

Thing #3
I am most passionate about thing #3 which happens to be a theory with practical guidelines called learning efficiency. This theory is grounded in a brain science called Cognitive Load Theory(CLT), which as been researched and formulated by the likes of G.A. Miller, W.G Chase, H.A. Simon, and John Sweller. Notably, John Sweller has summarized the findings of CLT research and packaged them into a neat and tidy little book called Efficiency in Learning: Evidence Based Guidelines to Manage Cognitive Load. This theory packs a punch, however, as the proven guidelines are spelled out in proven techniques for helping learners and instructors to maximize their learning. The goal is to NOT overload the learner's working memory so they don't lapse into a conscious stupor called cognitive overload. What has amazed me about this theory and the resulting principles is that educators, for the most part, don't really know about them. And this is love of mine is going to play a role in the future. As the public demands more accountability from teachers and schools, perhaps due to performance analysts picking everything apart, schools will need to prove that their methods for teaching are not just based on educational gurus trying to make a quick buck, but on educational science. For my part, I intend to teach these principles every time someone hands me a microphone in front of a group of teachers. Teachers need to know this stuff!

So in the end, the wee three things that I love will have to move forward with my efforts, and the effort of designers throughout the field. If instructional designers committ to play an active role in tthe educational field, using their skills and knowledge, then education will have a good opportunity for reform. If this doesn't happen, then education will be left up to the whims of politicians and beurocrats.

Note: This blog post was published as a response to FutureWatch #3 in EDTEC 795B.

Tomorrowland vs. the Apocalypse...Which is it?

Today, I decided to find out what "YouTuber's" had to say about the future of education. First, it must be said that nobody was very happy with the current state of education. I couldn't agree more. Our school system is, for the most part, controlled by entrenched interests and bureaucracies. The bean counters and technocrats are running the show.

Any Answers?
The second thing I noticed was that nobody really had a solution. Rather, I noticed two schools of thought. The first school of thought hearkened me back to watching Walt Disney's Tomorrowland videos. They were inspiring and made me feel good about the future, but they were wholly unrealistic. The same would be said for Evolution of Teaching and Technology or A Vision of K12 Students Today. These videos are interesting in terms of inspiring people to not give up hope, but they are based on idealized views of children and their abilities.

Kids are Kids
Having taught for 13 years in third, fifth, seventh, and eighth grade technolgy, I can testify that children are very much like they have always been. Yes, they have access to new gadgets, but they are not these amazing little prodigies that are constantly producing, collaborating, and yearning to transform their world. The reality is that they are kids who, just like generations before them, only want to do as much work as they have to. They can be motivated and spurred on by fantasic teachers, just as students have been motivated since the the time of Socrates.

Little Zombies

The second school of thought has our schools and children heading straight into the apocolypse, and dragging our nation down with it. According to this school of thought, our schools are creating mind-numbed zombies who will most likely ruin our nation because they have been prevented from achieving their full potential. Now, I must be honest and admit that I've probably labeled a few kids with this term while explaining certain student's educational status to fellow teachers, but it is probably a slight exaggeration. If you are persuaded by this school of thought, however, you may want to watch How to Survive a Zombie Apocalypse. It is very informative.

Anyways, back to my point. A Nation in Crisis: America's Educational System is Broken takes the "you are making zombies" approach, and paints a very bleak picture for education and our nation, without offering any real answers. The only answer I noticed in this video was that a parent revolt was needed. On that point, I agree since it probably would take a political revolt to change the current systems. That, however, is unlikely to happen so we probably need to work from within the system to bring out transformational systemic change.

Another Youtube video that depresses me is PayAttention. Now, I must admit that I love that video.

It is not accusing schools of creating Zombies, per se. Rather, it points out all the many things that teachers could do in classrooms if....

• students all had i-Pods, cell phones, laptops
• school districs allowed i-Pods, cell phones, and laptops to be used in school
• teachers had the knowledge and expertise to utilize these tools.

So when reality sets in, I only get depressed or frustrated from watching this video, and other videos like it.

Is the Future Bleak?
So you probably assume that I have a bleak view of the future. The reality is that I don't. I think eductors are changing and school districts are changing. It tends to be incremental, and often on a class by class, or school by school basis, but change is still happening nonetheless. Maybe there will come a politician someday who has the foresight to institute a policy of transformational systemic change for every district in the country. Maybe..., but I'll probably go watch that video again for inspiration. You know, the one on fending off Zombie attacks.

Note: This post was published in response to 795B Futurewatch 1.

Smashing a District!

Oh yeah baby! Let's take a sledge hammer to a few (errr...., most) school districts out there and see what happens. Am I sadistic? Possibly. I do get a small amount of joy imaging the process, but of course I am not actually talking about wielding a sledge hammer on brick and mortar buildings. Nor am I talking about just rearranging the track options for schools. Rather, I'm talking about adminstering ecological systemic change throughout the whole district.

Ecological systemic change is defined by Peter Eckel, Barbara Hill and Madeline Green, in their 1998 American Council on Education article, On Change: En Route to Transformation, as "change that alters the culture of the institution by changing select underlying assumptions and institutional behaviors, processes and products; is deep and pervasive, affecting the whole institution; is intentional; and occurs over time." Frank Duffy, professor at Gallaudet University and author of Dream!Create!Sustain!Mastering the Art & Science of Transforming School Systems describes this type of change as transformational change that,

"creates a school system that continuously seeks an idealized future for itself; and creates a future system that is substantially different from the current school system. That is, the system must be transformed."

Of course, this type of change is easier talked about than actually done.What Duffy is referring to is examining EVERYTHING in the district and starting over with a vast majority of district employees buying in. From my perspective, this is where the job gets hard. Teachers can be very difficult to change. There is on saying that teachers joke about in break rooms that "teaching would be easy if it weren't for the kids." The saying could be turned on it's head to say, "running a school district would be easy if it weren't for the teachers."

The tension is obvious. Like the proverbial horse being led to the water, teachers can't be forced into doing anything, even if everyone knows it is good for them. Teachers must be brought on board and WANT the change. This only happens when their is a very inspirational leader at the healm of the district, and most inspirational leaders tend to seek after the money, glory, or power. Some get all three...as in the case of President Obama.

So this brings me full circle. Everyone wants to smash their local school district, only to build it back up, but who is going to do it.

chirp, chirp, chirp, chirp, chirp

Of course, not many volunteers will not be forthcoming, so in the meantime, you can ponder what you are NOT going to look for in a leader by watching and reading about Steven Sonsino's Seven Failings of Really Useless Leaders. So when we know what we are not looking for in our tranformational leader, we can begin looking for leaders who are not "really useless" that will begin the tranformation process. Ha! Let's put that on the job description. "Looking for a leader who is not really useless."

Note: This post was published as a blog response number 2 in Edtec 795B. It focuses on ch. 21 from Trends and Issues in Instructionl Design and Technology.

Let's Smash High School!

A smashing idea!

I think high school needs to be broken into two...or three, or four pieces! That's right! Smash it to smithereens! Of course while literally smashing high school campuses into pieces might delight the imaginations of teenage vandals, it wouldn't exactly solve any problems with our high school system. However, letting instructional designers develop a new multi-track system by breaking high school up into multiple tracks might solve numerous problems.

One size definetly does not fit all!

If you ever spent any time inside a high school locker room, you know that one size definitely is not for everyone! Some kids are way beyond their years, while others are just starting to grow up. This same idea holds true when it comes to education. A one track and one topic educational system isn't for everyone. Multiple tracks in high school could solve this problem. By multiple tracks, I am referring to different paths that students can take after middle school to refine their education. For example, some students never liked science. These students could take a "literature and arts" track in high school that expands on their more creative interests. Other students with a more technological bent might to take a "science and technology track". And it doesn't just have to be two tracks. School systems might return to the ROTC model for a track that puts students into a workplace environment part of the time where they learn from a future employer how to perform a job well. The idea being that the more we allow our high school students to choose their interest, the more likely they are to remain interested in their education.

Come-on...Everybody is doing it!

Doesn't that phrase bring back those high school memories! Unlike smoking or drinking, however, there are probably valid reasons why eveyone is doing it when it comes to multi-track secondary education systems. And as much as I hate Euro-snobbery and elitism, I have to admit that they are doing education better than we are.

Europe has been doing multitrack systems for decades. In the case of France, students can choose between a "stream" in science, economics, humanities, professional (think ROTC) and eight technical streams. And in Germany, students are funneled into four different "schools" based on their academic abilities and interests. German students may enter apprenticeships as early as grade nine or ten. Other more academic minded Germans may stay in the "Gymnasium" until year 13 of their education.

So, my point is, why don't we do our research, begin to find out which societies are having the most success with their secondary systems, and begin pilot testing some of these systems in US districts. We will never know if it will work for us until we begin to research and bring back multiple-track systems in the US.

Research, Schmesearch!

I know, I hate reading about research almost as much as I hate writing about it. But the point must be made that current research and theories tend to support this multiple track idea. First, contructivist theory rightly has us paying more attention to our learners. They are each unique, don't all fit into a neat little educational box, and learn a heck of a lot better when they are interested in the topic. Teachers will never be able to force learning into the brains of unmotivated learners...NEVER! Once the basic educational foundation has been laid, a multi-track, (stream, school) system would allow teachers to better guide their students into their own bents. Everyone would be much happier. Need a quick primer on educational theory....watch this guy and his green screen.

Furthermore, the theory of Situated Learning really speaks strongly to the value of internships, apprenticeships, and mentoring relationships that can be developed in education-business collaborations. Obviously, when students are placed with helpful experts in a practical situation where they are interested in learning, they will thrive.

Just turn it all over to me!

Actually, I don't need all the schools. One itty bitty high school would suffice. And I certainly don't want to work alone. I would be happy with a team of instructional designers...preferrably from SDSU. Let us break the old model, and rebuild a new one. It is time to try something new. Yes, let us instructional designers apply our trade to the task. Who better to analyze the best track system model to adopt, design and develop the model according to best theory and practice, put it into practice, and evaluate it's success. Oh Yeah! I'm ready.

Note: This Post is in response to reading Chapter 4 and 5 from Trends and Issues in Instructional Design and Technology. The first Blog Post in EdTech795B.

Software I Love: Image Manipulation

I love free software because I am more stingy that most folks. As a technology educator, this applies doubly since I hate spending my own money on software. So this post is dedicated to paint.net. And yes, it is has a website called http://www.getpaint.net/, but it is also an awesome photo editing program similar to photoshop. I know, I know. Photoshop is way more advanced and has more features, but PDN is good for kids because it has a much simpler interface. And for 2 years now I've had students making fanciful and wonderful images in PDN. They learn how to use a "magic wand" tool to remove backgrounds from 5 pictures, put them on 5 different layers, and reconstitute them into a new background as a jpeg. They really enjoy the project!

So, if you are a teacher, or maybe just cheap, try PDN. It will serve most of your photo editing needs just fine.

Of Zork and Dorks...

Ok. I admit it. When I was a Jr. Higher I loved to play Zork 1 on the computer. It was an interactive fiction "game" that had no graphics whatsoever. In fact, it was purely text. The game happened in my imagination as I interacted with the computer software and plowed through the adventure. I always assumed that I liked it because I was a bit of a geeky dork who enjoyed such things.

Fast forward 20+ years and Zork 1 is back in my life. I was first reminded of it when I read it on TJ Kopcha's blog, my professor from SDSU, as "interactive fiction". The thought was that there might be some real value in this for education today.

Turns out he was right. I decided to install it in my lab and invite classes down during their reading period to "read" the interactive fiction. Kids absolutely love it. They don't even seem to realize that they are reading intently for meaning, writing clearly, and making decisions about what they are reading. Since then, I've brought it into my own exploratory computers class for a reward activity and kids just can't seem to get enough of it.

So turns out that Zork has universal appeal and that maybe I'm not such a dork after all. Well, maybe.

Very Classy--544 and 572 that is.

What can be said? I really enjoyed working in 544 and 572. I am very glad that I had the opportunity to work out "Digital Story Telling 101" as a unit. I has actually opened my eyes up to the possibility of publishing more and more of my lessons as websites. I think I will migrate the site to WordPress, however, since I really like their features and abilities. They are quite a lot more flexible and design oriented. I already created the site name of http://digitalstorytelling101.wordpress.com. I want to follow this up with http://podcasting101.wordpress.com. This will be used initially for a gate class I'm developing.

So my point is, that these courses really lent themselves well to designing instruction and actually putting the rubber to the road. The projects from both courses really lent themselves well to my whole instructional unit.
I liked that:

• The courses were integrated together.
• Their were weekly tips and tidbits for use in the class.
• The readings were free in 544!
• A real attempt was made to work collaboratively in groups.
• The assignments were extremely practical and can be put to use in my classroom and district immediately.
  

I would recommend:

• Get the group-work figured out. I loved the idea, but it was a bit hard to manage. Perhaps find a new medium other than Adobe Connect. Perhaps have everyone get Skype and try conference calls. 9 people can video conf. at a time and they also have free addons for file and screen sharing. (ie. Spontanea and pandea)
  
• Emphasize to everyone that all projects can (and probably should) be created with an end toward the instructional package. It really enhanced the scope of my unit because I was creating it all semester.
• Streamline the websites a bit. You might even put them on the same Moodle so it is not necessary to constantly switch back and forth.
• Work out the schedule a bit more in advance. I was sometimes confused about if we were having class or not.
• 544-Rename all the readings so that they match up with the assignments given in the Moodle. Perhaps just, Week 1 reading, Week 2 reading, etc... The problem was that their were 3 ch. 4's and the names of the PDF's did not match up with the names in the Moodle assignments.